Maletta v. Maletta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maletta v. Maletta

256 A.D. 942, 11 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5550

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 942 (Maletta v. Maletta) 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

Maletta v. Maletta, 256 A.D. 942, 11 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying plaintiff’s motion to sequester the real and personal property of the defendant and to appoint a receiver thereof reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, and matter remitted to the Special Term, Supreme Court, Kings county, for the making and entering of an order providing for the sequestration of defendant’s property and the appointment of a receiver in accordance with the provisions of section 1171 of the Civil Practice Act. There is no denial of the averments set forth in the moving and supplemental affidavits of the plaintiff, and on the uncontradicted showing of plaintiff her application should have been granted. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying plaintiff’s motion to sequester the real and personal property of the defendant and to appoint a receiver thereof reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, and matter remitted to the Special Term, Supreme Court, Kings county, for the making and entering of an order providing for the sequestration of defendant’s property and the appointment of a receiver in accordance with the provisions of section 1171 of the Civil Practice Act. There is no denial of the averments set forth in the moving and supplemental affidavits of the plaintiff, and on the uncontradicted showing of plaintiff her application should have been granted. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 942, 11 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maletta-v-maletta-nyappdiv-1939.