Lippitt v. Haggerty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lippitt v. Haggerty

264 A.D. 822, 35 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4845

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

DecidedMay 6, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 822 (Lippitt v. Haggerty) 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

Lippitt v. Haggerty, 264 A.D. 822, 35 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified on the law by striking out the third ordering paragraph and by inserting in place thereof a provision that plaintiffs Rhodes Bakeries, Inc., in Action No. 3 and Robert C. Fox in Action No. 4 shall have the right to open and close, and as modified affirmed, without costs. All concur. (The order grants a motion of plaintiffs Lippitt and Seider in the first two actions and of defendant Seider in the last two actions, to change the place of trial in Actions 3 and 4 from Cattaraugus county to Brie county, and for consolidation of the actions, and denies motions of defendants in Actions 1 and 2 for change of place of trial from Brie county to Cattaraugus county.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

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

Order modified on the law by striking out the third ordering paragraph and by inserting in place thereof a provision that plaintiffs Rhodes Bakeries, Inc., in Action No. 3 and Robert C. Fox in Action No. 4 shall have the right to open and close, and as modified affirmed, without costs. All concur. (The order grants a motion of plaintiffs Lippitt and Seider in the first two actions and of defendant Seider in the last two actions, to change the place of trial in Actions 3 and 4 from Cattaraugus county to Brie county, and for consolidation of the actions, and denies motions of defendants in Actions 1 and 2 for change of place of trial from Brie county to Cattaraugus county.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 822, 35 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lippitt-v-haggerty-nyappdiv-1942.