Meken v. Stoupakis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meken v. Stoupakis

253 A.D. 912, 2 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9226

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 912 (Meken v. Stoupakis) 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

Meken v. Stoupakis, 253 A.D. 912, 2 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying defendant’s motion for an immediate reference and for removal of coreceivers, and granting plaintiff’s motion adjudging the defendant guilty of contempt, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, defendant’s motion granted to the extent of directing an immediate reference before an official referee, and plaintiff’s cross-motion denied, with ten dollars costs. As to the withholding by defendant of moneys belonging to the business, there was not, in our opinion, a showing sufficient to hold him in contempt. The matter may be adjusted upon the settlement of the accounts of the defendant as receiver and his wife as coreceiver. Under the circumstances, and particularly in the light of the allegations of the complaint itself to the effect that plaintiff’s only contribution to this copartnership was an old Ford automobile, the motion for an immediate reference should have been granted. Appeal from decision denying .reargument dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying defendant’s motion for an immediate reference and for removal of coreceivers, and granting plaintiff’s motion adjudging the defendant guilty of contempt, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, defendant’s motion granted to the extent of directing an immediate reference before an official referee, and plaintiff’s cross-motion denied, with ten dollars costs. As to the withholding by defendant of moneys belonging to the business, there was not, in our opinion, a showing sufficient to hold him in contempt. The matter may be adjusted upon the settlement of the accounts of the defendant as receiver and his wife as coreceiver. Under the circumstances, and particularly in the light of the allegations of the complaint itself to the effect that plaintiff’s only contribution to this copartnership was an old Ford automobile, the motion for an immediate reference should have been granted. Appeal from decision denying .reargument dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 912, 2 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meken-v-stoupakis-nyappdiv-1938.