Northville Dock Corp. v. Aller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Northville Dock Corp. v. Aller

15 A.D.2d 947, 226 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10910

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 947 (Northville Dock Corp. v. Aller) 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

Northville Dock Corp. v. Aller, 15 A.D.2d 947, 226 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. Said defendants, who were not the judgment debtors 'but were the transferees of their property, were charged with participating in the conspiracy. One of the transfers of the judgment debtors’ assets occurred before the rendition of plaintiff’s judgment and before plaintiff obtained any lien on such assets. While the complaint sought various forms of equitable relief, as against said defendants it sought money damages only. At the close of the evidence and without objection, the trial court struck out the claims for equitable relief and submitted the case to the jury solely as one for damages against said defendants. Under the circumstances presented, plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action for damages against the said defendants (cf. Braem v. Merchants’ Nat. Bank, 127 N. Y. 508; Kaspin v. Thaw, 262 App. Div. 861, and cases cited therein). A prior determination of the Special Term sustaining the sufficiency of the complaint does not constitute the law of the case in this court (Rager v. McCloskey, 305 N. Y. 75, 78; Walker v. Gerli, 257 App. Div. 249; Rubinstein v. Rubenstein, 272 App. Div. 1042). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. Said defendants, who were not the judgment debtors 'but were the transferees of their property, were charged with participating in the conspiracy. One of the transfers of the judgment debtors’ assets occurred before the rendition of plaintiff’s judgment and before plaintiff obtained any lien on such assets. While the complaint sought various forms of equitable relief, as against said defendants it sought money damages only. At the close of the evidence and without objection, the trial court struck out the claims for equitable relief and submitted the case to the jury solely as one for damages against said defendants. Under the circumstances presented, plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action for damages against the said defendants (cf. Braem v. Merchants’ Nat. Bank, 127 N. Y. 508; Kaspin v. Thaw, 262 App. Div. 861, and cases cited therein). A prior determination of the Special Term sustaining the sufficiency of the complaint does not constitute the law of the case in this court (Rager v. McCloskey, 305 N. Y. 75, 78; Walker v. Gerli, 257 App. Div. 249; Rubinstein v. Rubenstein, 272 App. Div. 1042). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 947, 226 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northville-dock-corp-v-aller-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack