Miller Auto Leasing v. Weinstein
473 A.2d 996, 193 N.J. Super. 328
Opinion
MILLER AUTO LEASING COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MARTIN S. WEINSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND TRADING AS LINCOLN HARDWARE & SUPPLY, JOINTLY, SEVERALLY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Before Judges BISCHOFF, PETRELLA and BRODY.
*329 Robert E. Bennett, argued the cause for appellant (Mark R. Silber, attorney; Robert E. Bennett on the brief).
John A. Sweeney argued the cause for respondent (Dietz, Allen & Sweeney, attorneys; John A. Sweeney on the brief).
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Wells, reported at 189 N.J. Super. 543 (Law Div. 1983).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Miller Auto Leasing v. Weinstein, 473 A.2d 996, 193 N.J. Super. 328 (N.J. Ct. App. 1984).
473 A.2d 996 (Miller Auto Leasing v. Weinstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Miller Auto Leasing Co. v. Weinstein
461 A.2d 174 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1983)
Miller Auto Leasing Co. v. Weinstein
473 A.2d 996 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1984)