Neilitz v. Neilitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Neilitz v. Neilitz

282 A.D. 1099, 126 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5910

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 1099 (Neilitz v. Neilitz) 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

Neilitz v. Neilitz, 282 A.D. 1099, 126 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

■ — Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Chemung County Special Term, which dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on the merits. The parties are husband and wife, and were living together at the time the action was commenced. The action was for an accounting, based on plaintiff’s claim that she was a joint venturer with her husband in the operation of two farms, title to which was in the parties as tenants by the entirety. The trial court found the evidence insufficient to establish an express or implied contract between the parties to enter upon a joint' venture. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, without costs, but with printing disbursements to the respondent. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ. [See 283 App. Div. 679.]

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

■ — Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Chemung County Special Term, which dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on the merits. The parties are husband and wife, and were living together at the time the action was commenced. The action was for an accounting, based on plaintiff’s claim that she was a joint venturer with her husband in the operation of two farms, title to which was in the parties as tenants by the entirety. The trial court found the evidence insufficient to establish an express or implied contract between the parties to enter upon a joint' venture. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, without costs, but with printing disbursements to the respondent. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ. [See 283 App. Div. 679.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 1099, 126 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neilitz-v-neilitz-nyappdiv-1953.