Moses v. New York Investors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moses v. New York Investors, Inc.

228 A.D. 836

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D. 836 (Moses v. New York Investors, Inc.) 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

Moses v. New York Investors, Inc., 228 A.D. 836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

. ■ Order reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for the appointment of a temporary receiver denied, with ten dollars costs. Upon the undisputed facts, respondents [837]*837have not made ont a case entitling them to the appointment of a receiver. Three is no danger that the property will be removed beyond the jurisdiction of the court, or lost, materially injured, or destroyed, and these are the only grounds for a receivership before final judgment. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 974, subd. 1.) It is desirable, however, that there be a prompt trial and determination of the issues and to that end it is directed that the cause be set down for trial at the next term of the Supreme Court in Suffolk county. Young, Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

. ■ Order reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for the appointment of a temporary receiver denied, with ten dollars costs. Upon the undisputed facts, respondents [837]*837have not made ont a case entitling them to the appointment of a receiver. Three is no danger that the property will be removed beyond the jurisdiction of the court, or lost, materially injured, or destroyed, and these are the only grounds for a receivership before final judgment. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 974, subd. 1.) It is desirable, however, that there be a prompt trial and determination of the issues and to that end it is directed that the cause be set down for trial at the next term of the Supreme Court in Suffolk county. Young, Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D. 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moses-v-new-york-investors-inc-nyappdiv-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack