In re the Final Accounting of Chase Manhattan Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Final Accounting of Chase Manhattan Bank

15 A.D.2d 780, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11231

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 780 (In re the Final Accounting of Chase Manhattan Bank) 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 the Final Accounting of Chase Manhattan Bank, 15 A.D.2d 780, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion, insofar as it seeks to resettle the order dated December 12, 1961 on appeal numbered 4141 and to vacate said order, denied on the stipulation that the Attorney-General may amend his answer to the same extent that the other parties are given permission to amend. In this way all respondents may replead the matter stricken in the sixth paragraph of the answers. On appeal numbered 4142 the counterorders differ from that submitted by appellant Lincoln Center, in that they omit mention of Mrs. Hubbard’s motives in connection with the Harold McCormick Trust. This trust is not directly involved and whether proof is admissible in connection with such motives as throwing light on her motives in connection with the trust involved is a matter for determination by the Referee. The same may be said as to what extent proof of “acts” may be admissible to show motive or intent. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Motion, insofar as it seeks to resettle the order dated December 12, 1961 on appeal numbered 4141 and to vacate said order, denied on the stipulation that the Attorney-General may amend his answer to the same extent that the other parties are given permission to amend. In this way all respondents may replead the matter stricken in the sixth paragraph of the answers. On appeal numbered 4142 the counterorders differ from that submitted by appellant Lincoln Center, in that they omit mention of Mrs. Hubbard’s motives in connection with the Harold McCormick Trust. This trust is not directly involved and whether proof is admissible in connection with such motives as throwing light on her motives in connection with the trust involved is a matter for determination by the Referee. The same may be said as to what extent proof of “acts” may be admissible to show motive or intent. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 780, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-final-accounting-of-chase-manhattan-bank-nyappdiv-1962.