Krooss v. Maue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krooss v. Maue

277 A.D.2d 973

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 17, 1950·Published

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed and the motion granted. There is no conflict of interest between appellant in his individual and representative capacities. On the pleadings his position as defendant is identical with plaintiff’s position and the contest is between the Krooss estate now represented by appellant as administrator and respondent Maue. It is proper under the circumstances for appellant to be substituted as plaintiff. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ. [198 Misc. 397.]

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

Order unanimously reversed and the motion granted. There is no conflict of interest between appellant in his individual and representative capacities. On the pleadings his position as defendant is identical with plaintiff’s position and the contest is between the Krooss estate now represented by appellant as administrator and respondent Maue. It is proper under the circumstances for appellant to be substituted as plaintiff. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ. [198 Misc. 397.]

Krooss v. Maue, 277 A.D.2d 973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

277 A.D.2d 973 (Krooss v. Maue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related