In re Philip A. Busman & Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Philip A. Busman & Sons, Inc.

30 A.D.2d 544, 292 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4033

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

DecidedMay 13, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 544 (In re Philip A. Busman & Sons, Inc.) 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 Philip A. Busman & Sons, Inc., 30 A.D.2d 544, 292 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4033 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

On the court’s own motion, the decision rendered May 6, 1968 (30 A D 2d 641) is amended to read as follows: Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 8, 1965, except, as limited by appellants’ briefs, so much of the judgment as dismissed the petition of Leslie T. Giblin in part. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs jointly to respondents Greiss and Cembalest against appellants and respondent Weinberg. No opinion. (Though nominally a respondent, Weinberg’s brief on appeal joined with appellants in requesting a reversal of the judgment. Hence he, like appellants, was an unsuccessful party on this appeal and he consequently should bear with appellants the burden of costs.) Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

On the court’s own motion, the decision rendered May 6, 1968 (30 A D 2d 641) is amended to read as follows: Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 8, 1965, except, as limited by appellants’ briefs, so much of the judgment as dismissed the petition of Leslie T. Giblin in part. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs jointly to respondents Greiss and Cembalest against appellants and respondent Weinberg. No opinion. (Though nominally a respondent, Weinberg’s brief on appeal joined with appellants in requesting a reversal of the judgment. Hence he, like appellants, was an unsuccessful party on this appeal and he consequently should bear with appellants the burden of costs.) Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 544, 292 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-philip-a-busman-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1968.