Natelson v. A. B. L. Holding Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Natelson v. A. B. L. Holding Co.

242 A.D. 696

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D. 696 (Natelson v. A. B. L. Holding Co.) 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

Natelson v. A. B. L. Holding Co., 242 A.D. 696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Order referring the matter to an official referee to take proof, entered April 25, 1934, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion denied. The motion for an accounting is premature, for the plaintiff has not followed the directions of the judgment in first selling the real property under an execution. Until that is done and the amount applicable to the deficiency judgment determined, the plaintiff is not entitled to an accounting from the individual defendants. Furthermore, the proceeding before an official referee is contrary to the directions of the judgment wherein a referee was appointed to examine into the transaction and to report the sums that have been received by the defendants and the disposition of the property. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order referring the matter to an official referee to take proof, entered April 25, 1934, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion denied. The motion for an accounting is premature, for the plaintiff has not followed the directions of the judgment in first selling the real property under an execution. Until that is done and the amount applicable to the deficiency judgment determined, the plaintiff is not entitled to an accounting from the individual defendants. Furthermore, the proceeding before an official referee is contrary to the directions of the judgment wherein a referee was appointed to examine into the transaction and to report the sums that have been received by the defendants and the disposition of the property. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D. 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/natelson-v-a-b-l-holding-co-nyappdiv-1934.