Miller v. Smerkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Smerkins

242 A.D. 659

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

DecidedJune 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D. 659 (Miller v. Smerkins) 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

Miller v. Smerkins, 242 A.D. 659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to the appellant to abide the event. In our opinion, the plaintiff’s proofs are sufficient to show that H. S. Smerkins, Inc., the judgment debtor, was in business at 420 Forty-seventh avenue, Long Island City, in 1933, and that it, and not Smerkins as an individual, sold the business to'the Hesco Waterproof Products Corporation. Findings inconsistent with this decision are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents and votes to affirm. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to the appellant to abide the event. In our opinion, the plaintiff’s proofs are sufficient to show that H. S. Smerkins, Inc., the judgment debtor, was in business at 420 Forty-seventh avenue, Long Island City, in 1933, and that it, and not Smerkins as an individual, sold the business to'the Hesco Waterproof Products Corporation. Findings inconsistent with this decision are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents and votes to affirm. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D. 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-smerkins-nyappdiv-1934.