In re Three Forty Madison Avenue Corp.

279 A.D. 732, 108 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3581

Opinion

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.; Dore, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to reverse. The intended meaning of the subject clause in the stipulation of settlement relied on herein is ambiguous and should not be determined until evidence has been adduced at the trial or hearing concerning the real intention of the parties. In this respect the case differs from Matter of Moore (Smith) (194 Misc. 718) on which the learned Special Term relied; in that case the agreement was clear and unambiguous. The order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to petitioner-appellant and the proceeding remitted for a hearing.

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

In re Three Forty Madison Avenue Corp., 279 A.D. 732, 108 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

279 A.D. 732 (In re Three Forty Madison Avenue Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Moore
194 Misc. 718 (New York Supreme Court, 1949)