Landau v. Landau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Landau v. Landau

22 A.D.2d 868, 254 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2592

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 868 (Landau v. Landau) 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

Landau v. Landau, 22 A.D.2d 868, 254 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered October 15, 1964, denying plaintiffs motion for a temporary injunction and directing that the ease he placed on the Trial Calendar of November 12, 1964, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of deleting the last decretal paragraph providing for an immediate trial, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. The direction for an immediate trial runs contrary to the court rule providing for the consent of the parties as a condition precedent to the granting of an immediate trial where an application is made for a temporary injunction. (New York County Supreme Court Rules, Special Terms, rule II, subd. 8; Audio Fid. v. Dukes of Dixieland, 20 A D 2d 776; Morton New York City Corp. v. Wolfson, 15 A D 2d 645.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered October 15, 1964, denying plaintiffs motion for a temporary injunction and directing that the ease he placed on the Trial Calendar of November 12, 1964, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of deleting the last decretal paragraph providing for an immediate trial, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. The direction for an immediate trial runs contrary to the court rule providing for the consent of the parties as a condition precedent to the granting of an immediate trial where an application is made for a temporary injunction. (New York County Supreme Court Rules, Special Terms, rule II, subd. 8; Audio Fid. v. Dukes of Dixieland, 20 A D 2d 776; Morton New York City Corp. v. Wolfson, 15 A D 2d 645.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 868, 254 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landau-v-landau-nyappdiv-1964.