In re Liberty Heights Liquidating Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Liberty Heights Liquidating Co.

240 A.D. 715

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

DecidedJune 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 715 (In re Liberty Heights Liquidating Co.) 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 Liberty Heights Liquidating Co., 240 A.D. 715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion to reopen proceeding reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, to the extent of sending the matter to the Special Term for the taking of testimony and a determination of the compensation to be made to the appellant for damage parcel No. 18, and, upon such determination, for the amendment of the final order in this proceeding accordingly. In our opinion, on the admitted facts, the appellant is entitled to an award for the reasonable value of damage parcel No. 18. It has not lost its right to such an award by reason of the [716]*716provisions of the Civil Practice Act or by laches, and the other parties to this proceeding are not necessary parties to this motion. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying motion to reopen proceeding reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, to the extent of sending the matter to the Special Term for the taking of testimony and a determination of the compensation to be made to the appellant for damage parcel No. 18, and, upon such determination, for the amendment of the final order in this proceeding accordingly. In our opinion, on the admitted facts, the appellant is entitled to an award for the reasonable value of damage parcel No. 18. It has not lost its right to such an award by reason of the [716]*716provisions of the Civil Practice Act or by laches, and the other parties to this proceeding are not necessary parties to this motion. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-liberty-heights-liquidating-co-nyappdiv-1933.