Matthews v. Schusheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matthews v. Schusheim

25 A.D.2d 450, 266 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5072

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 450 (Matthews v. Schusheim) 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

Matthews v. Schusheim, 25 A.D.2d 450, 266 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5072 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a consolidated action to recover (1) damages allegedly resulting from defendants’ fraud and conspiracy to conceal from plaintiff the assets of defendant Mark Matthews, and (2) an alleged indebtedness, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered November 3, 1965 as approved certain rulings of the Referee supervising the pretrial examination of said defendant. Appeal dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The order, insofar as appealed from, is nonappealable (Hall v. Wood, 5 A D 2d 998; Lee v. Chemway Corp., 20 A D 2d 266; Oppenheimer v. Duophoto Corp., 271 App. Div. 1005). We have, however, examined the merits and have concluded that we would affirm the order (insofar as appealed from) if the appeal were not being dismissed. In our opinion, this matter must proceed to trial and further delay in this respect can no longer be tolerated. (For previous appeals see Matter of Matthews v. Matthews, 11 A D 2d 813; Matter of Matthews v. Matthews, 14 A D 2d 546; Matthews v. Schusheim, 36 Misc 2d 918, revd. 18 A D 2d 719, rearg. den. 18 A D 2d 834, app. dsmd. 13 N Y 2d 756; Matthews v. Schusheim, 20 A D 2d 671; Matthews v. Schusheim, 23 A D 2d 632; Matthews v. Schusheim, 24 A D 2d 705.)

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a consolidated action to recover (1) damages allegedly resulting from defendants’ fraud and conspiracy to conceal from plaintiff the assets of defendant Mark Matthews, and (2) an alleged indebtedness, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered November 3, 1965 as approved certain rulings of the Referee supervising the pretrial examination of said defendant. Appeal dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The order, insofar as appealed from, is nonappealable (Hall v. Wood, 5 A D 2d 998; Lee v. Chemway Corp., 20 A D 2d 266; Oppenheimer v. Duophoto Corp., 271 App. Div. 1005). We have, however, examined the merits and have concluded that we would affirm the order (insofar as appealed from) if the appeal were not being dismissed. In our opinion, this matter must proceed to trial and further delay in this respect can no longer be tolerated. (For previous appeals see Matter of Matthews v. Matthews, 11 A D 2d 813; Matter of Matthews v. Matthews, 14 A D 2d 546; Matthews v. Schusheim, 36 Misc 2d 918, revd. 18 A D 2d 719, rearg. den. 18 A D 2d 834, app. dsmd. 13 N Y 2d 756; Matthews v. Schusheim, 20 A D 2d 671; Matthews v. Schusheim, 23 A D 2d 632; Matthews v. Schusheim, 24 A D 2d 705.)

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 450, 266 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-schusheim-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack