Katz v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance

231 A.D. 848, 246 N.Y.S. 796

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D. 848 (Katz v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance) 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

Katz v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance, 231 A.D. 848, 246 N.Y.S. 796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Appellate Term reversing judgment of the Municipal Court and directing judgment for plaintiffs affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Kapper, Hagarty, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents, with the following memorandum: The acceptance by plaintiffs of the release provided for in thé order of the Municipal Court, dated March 5, 1928, was an acquiescence in the provisions of the order extending the jail limits. Although the order was void, such acceptance was equivalent to an expression of willingness by plaintiffs that Schneiderman might go anywhere in the city of New York. In an action against the bonding company they may not assert otherwise.

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

Order of the Appellate Term reversing judgment of the Municipal Court and directing judgment for plaintiffs affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Kapper, Hagarty, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents, with the following memorandum: The acceptance by plaintiffs of the release provided for in thé order of the Municipal Court, dated March 5, 1928, was an acquiescence in the provisions of the order extending the jail limits. Although the order was void, such acceptance was equivalent to an expression of willingness by plaintiffs that Schneiderman might go anywhere in the city of New York. In an action against the bonding company they may not assert otherwise.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D. 848, 246 N.Y.S. 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-massachusetts-bonding-insurance-nyappdiv-1930.