Horowitz v. Dombroff
This text of 282 A.D. 960 (Horowitz v. Dombroff) 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.
Opinion
Order denying appellant’s motion to vacate a subpoena in supplementary proceedings, on the grounds that the respondent is not the real party in interest and that he has no title by reason of his bankruptcy, from which he has been discharged, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements; examination to proceed on five days’ notice. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
282 A.D. 960, 126 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horowitz-v-dombroff-nyappdiv-1953.