Krooss v. Maue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krooss v. Maue

277 A.D.2d 973

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 973 (Krooss v. Maue) 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

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

Pincite

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.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krooss-v-maue-nyappdiv-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack