Kalkstein v. Kalkstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalkstein v. Kalkstein

278 A.D. 781, 103 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4725

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

DecidedApril 16, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 781 (Kalkstein v. Kalkstein) 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

Kalkstein v. Kalkstein, 278 A.D. 781, 103 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought by plaintiffs to enforce a trust agreement allegedly made by their father, the individual defendant, with respect to stock of the corporate defendant, one Jacob R. Melson appeals from an order denying his motion to permit him to intervene as a party defendant in the action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. On the record submitted appellant has not established that he is a person who may be bound by a judgment in the action, representation of whose interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate, or that he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property subject to the control of or disposition by the court or an officer thereof. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 193-b.) Nolan P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

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

In an action brought by plaintiffs to enforce a trust agreement allegedly made by their father, the individual defendant, with respect to stock of the corporate defendant, one Jacob R. Melson appeals from an order denying his motion to permit him to intervene as a party defendant in the action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. On the record submitted appellant has not established that he is a person who may be bound by a judgment in the action, representation of whose interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate, or that he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property subject to the control of or disposition by the court or an officer thereof. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 193-b.) Nolan P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 781, 103 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalkstein-v-kalkstein-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack