Home & Prospect Realty Corp. v. Resource Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Home & Prospect Realty Corp. v. Resource Realty Corp.

236 A.D. 856

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 856 (Home & Prospect Realty Corp. v. Resource Realty Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Home & Prospect Realty Corp. v. Resource Realty Corp., 236 A.D. 856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting an extra allowance and amending the decision and judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, on the following grounds: (1) The court was without power to amend the decision and judgment by directing an extra allowance after the costs had been adjusted. (Rules Civ. Prac. rule 200.) (2) The decision and judgment did not award costs to respondents, and there was, therefore, no authority to grant an extra allowance. (Barnes v. Midland Railroad Terminal Co., 161 App. Div. 621.) (3) The affidavit in support of the motion discloses that it was not an “ extraordinary and difficult ease.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order granting an extra allowance and amending the decision and judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, on the following grounds: (1) The court was without power to amend the decision and judgment by directing an extra allowance after the costs had been adjusted. (Rules Civ. Prac. rule 200.) (2) The decision and judgment did not award costs to respondents, and there was, therefore, no authority to grant an extra allowance. (Barnes v. Midland Railroad Terminal Co., 161 App. Div. 621.) (3) The affidavit in support of the motion discloses that it was not an “ extraordinary and difficult ease.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/home-prospect-realty-corp-v-resource-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack