Levy v. Marcus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levy v. Marcus

52 A.D.2d 631, 382 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12275

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

DecidedApril 20, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 631 (Levy v. Marcus) 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

Levy v. Marcus, 52 A.D.2d 631, 382 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover damages for breach of a partnership agreement, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 23, 1976, as, inter alia (1) denied his motion to vacate a prior order appointing a temporary receiver and (2) upon reconsideration, adhered to such prior determination. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. On [632]*632this record we believe that the appointment of a receiver constituted a proper exercise of Special Term’s discretion. Plaintiff is directed to place this case upon the Trial Calendar forthwith, and, upon compliance with such direction, this case is placed at the head of the May 1976 Calendar. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to recover damages for breach of a partnership agreement, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 23, 1976, as, inter alia (1) denied his motion to vacate a prior order appointing a temporary receiver and (2) upon reconsideration, adhered to such prior determination. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. On [632]*632this record we believe that the appointment of a receiver constituted a proper exercise of Special Term’s discretion. Plaintiff is directed to place this case upon the Trial Calendar forthwith, and, upon compliance with such direction, this case is placed at the head of the May 1976 Calendar. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 631, 382 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-marcus-nyappdiv-1976.