In re Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kaplan

10 A.D.2d 909, 202 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10324

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

DecidedMay 3, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 909 (In re Kaplan) 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

In re Kaplan, 10 A.D.2d 909, 202 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs. The execution and enforcement of the order appealed from is hereby stayed until 10 days after service of a copy of the order entered herein upon the attorney for the respondemLappellant, with notice of entry thereof. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin and M. M. Frank, JJ.; Valente and Stevens, JJ., dissent and vote to deny in the following memorandum: We dissent and vote to deny motion for order of arrest on the ground that whatever materiality the inquiry would have had if timely made was destroyed. by the unexplained lapse of time, and, under all the circumstances, there was reasonable ground to refuse to answer the questions put. [22 Misc 2d 839.]

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

Order affirmed, without costs. The execution and enforcement of the order appealed from is hereby stayed until 10 days after service of a copy of the order entered herein upon the attorney for the respondemLappellant, with notice of entry thereof. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin and M. M. Frank, JJ.; Valente and Stevens, JJ., dissent and vote to deny in the following memorandum: We dissent and vote to deny motion for order of arrest on the ground that whatever materiality the inquiry would have had if timely made was destroyed. by the unexplained lapse of time, and, under all the circumstances, there was reasonable ground to refuse to answer the questions put. [22 Misc 2d 839.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 909, 202 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kaplan-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack