Lippman v. Zinn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lippman v. Zinn

283 A.D. 810, 129 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5393

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 810 (Lippman v. Zinn) 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

Lippman v. Zinn, 283 A.D. 810, 129 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract by the defendant Zinn, and for alleged inducement, by the defendant Goldstein, of such breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of both defendants, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the merits and awarding costs to defendants. Plaintiff also appeals from an order directing that the judgment be amended nunc pro tunc so as to provide that the complaint was dismissed at the end of the entire case and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve and file a demand for trial by jury nunc pro tunc. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, and orders affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Murphy, JJ.

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

In an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract by the defendant Zinn, and for alleged inducement, by the defendant Goldstein, of such breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of both defendants, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the merits and awarding costs to defendants. Plaintiff also appeals from an order directing that the judgment be amended nunc pro tunc so as to provide that the complaint was dismissed at the end of the entire case and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve and file a demand for trial by jury nunc pro tunc. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, and orders affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Murphy, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 810, 129 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lippman-v-zinn-nyappdiv-1954.