In re Prom Handbag Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Prom Handbag Co.

12 A.D.2d 525, 208 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6935

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 525 (In re Prom Handbag 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 Prom Handbag Co., 12 A.D.2d 525, 208 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In a general assignment for creditors, made pursuant to article 2 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, the assignee appeals from an order of the County Court, Orange County, dated July 12, 1960, denying his application to have the court confer immunity upon a witness (the respondent) pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 16 of the Debtor and Creditor Law. Order affirmed, without costs. Under all the circumstances disclosed by this record we are unable to say that the County Judge abused his discretion in denying the application. It was for him to determine on the evidence presented whether [526]*526the witness should be granted immunity from prosecution, as permitted by the statute (Debtor and Creditor Law, § 16, subd. 2). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., not voting.

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

In a general assignment for creditors, made pursuant to article 2 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, the assignee appeals from an order of the County Court, Orange County, dated July 12, 1960, denying his application to have the court confer immunity upon a witness (the respondent) pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 16 of the Debtor and Creditor Law. Order affirmed, without costs. Under all the circumstances disclosed by this record we are unable to say that the County Judge abused his discretion in denying the application. It was for him to determine on the evidence presented whether [526]*526the witness should be granted immunity from prosecution, as permitted by the statute (Debtor and Creditor Law, § 16, subd. 2). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 525, 208 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-prom-handbag-co-nyappdiv-1960.