Jakobowitz v. Abramowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jakobowitz v. Abramowitz

16 A.D.2d 684, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10183

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

DecidedApril 23, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 684 (Jakobowitz v. Abramowitz) 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

Jakobowitz v. Abramowitz, 16 A.D.2d 684, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, in which the complaint pleads three separate causes, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief: (a) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 8,1959, as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to the extent of directing such judgment on the first cause of action to recover a balance due for goods sold and delivered, and directing the dismissal of defendants’ counterclaims; (b) from so much of a judgment of said court, entered thereon October 8,1959, as struck out defendants’ answer to such cause of action, dismissed defendants’ counterclaims, and directed recovery on such cause of action; and (c) from an order of said court, dated May 26, 1960, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate the said judgment on the ground of fraud. Order [685]*685dated October 8, 1959, insofar as appealed from; judgment, insofar as appealed from, and order dated May 26, 1960, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, in which the complaint pleads three separate causes, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief: (a) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 8,1959, as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to the extent of directing such judgment on the first cause of action to recover a balance due for goods sold and delivered, and directing the dismissal of defendants’ counterclaims; (b) from so much of a judgment of said court, entered thereon October 8,1959, as struck out defendants’ answer to such cause of action, dismissed defendants’ counterclaims, and directed recovery on such cause of action; and (c) from an order of said court, dated May 26, 1960, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate the said judgment on the ground of fraud. Order [685]*685dated October 8, 1959, insofar as appealed from; judgment, insofar as appealed from, and order dated May 26, 1960, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 684, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jakobowitz-v-abramowitz-nyappdiv-1962.