Kremer v. New York Air Terminals, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kremer v. New York Air Terminals, Inc.

235 A.D. 796

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

DecidedApril 15, 1932

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 796 (Kremer v. New York Air Terminals, Inc.) 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

Kremer v. New York Air Terminals, Inc., 235 A.D. 796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting plaintiff an extra allowance of $1,500 modified by reducing it to $12.50, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. (1) Orders of this character have been treated as appealable. (People v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 29 N. Y. 418, 421; Diamond Expansion Bolt Co. v. U. S. Expansion B. Co., 177 App. Div. 554, 565; Commercial National Banke v. Hand, 27 id. 145; Civ. Prac. Act, § 609, subds. 3, 4.) (2) The five per cent allowance should have been computed on the amount recovered, which amount was $250, and, therefore, the allowance should have been $12.50. (Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co. v. Central New England R. Co., 202 App. Div. 813; affd., 235 N. Y. 582; Civ. Prac. Act, [797]*797§ 1513.) Recourse to value of subject-matter for the purpose of computing an extra allowance may only be had where the party does not seek or recover damages. (Little Falls Fibre Co. v. Ford & Son, Inc., 223 App. Div. 559; affd., 249 N. Y. 495.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order granting plaintiff an extra allowance of $1,500 modified by reducing it to $12.50, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. (1) Orders of this character have been treated as appealable. (People v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 29 N. Y. 418, 421; Diamond Expansion Bolt Co. v. U. S. Expansion B. Co., 177 App. Div. 554, 565; Commercial National Banke v. Hand, 27 id. 145; Civ. Prac. Act, § 609, subds. 3, 4.) (2) The five per cent allowance should have been computed on the amount recovered, which amount was $250, and, therefore, the allowance should have been $12.50. (Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co. v. Central New England R. Co., 202 App. Div. 813; affd., 235 N. Y. 582; Civ. Prac. Act, [797]*797§ 1513.) Recourse to value of subject-matter for the purpose of computing an extra allowance may only be had where the party does not seek or recover damages. (Little Falls Fibre Co. v. Ford & Son, Inc., 223 App. Div. 559; affd., 249 N. Y. 495.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kremer-v-new-york-air-terminals-inc-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack