Marco v. Sachs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marco v. Sachs

1 A.D.2d 851, 149 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6199

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 851 (Marco v. Sachs) 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

Marco v. Sachs, 1 A.D.2d 851, 149 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In a stockholder’s derivative action, the appeal is from an order which denied, without prejudice, appellants’ motion to disqualify respondents’ attorneys from appearing for, representing or aiding any of the respondents in said action. Prior to the argument of the appeal, and on October 27, 1955, this court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal, with leave to renew on the argument of the appeal; the motion has been renewed. Renewed motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. (See Marco v. Sachs, ante, p. 849, decided herewith.) The Special Term did not have jurisdiction to grant the motion. (See Erie Co. Water Auth. v. Western N. Y. Water Co., 304 N. Y. 342.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

In a stockholder’s derivative action, the appeal is from an order which denied, without prejudice, appellants’ motion to disqualify respondents’ attorneys from appearing for, representing or aiding any of the respondents in said action. Prior to the argument of the appeal, and on October 27, 1955, this court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal, with leave to renew on the argument of the appeal; the motion has been renewed. Renewed motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. (See Marco v. Sachs, ante, p. 849, decided herewith.) The Special Term did not have jurisdiction to grant the motion. (See Erie Co. Water Auth. v. Western N. Y. Water Co., 304 N. Y. 342.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 851, 149 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marco-v-sachs-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack