Palmer v. Gillette Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmer v. Gillette Co.

285 A.D. 1156, 140 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6994

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

DecidedMay 2, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1156 (Palmer v. Gillette 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

Palmer v. Gillette Co., 285 A.D. 1156, 140 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6994 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action against a foreign corporation to recover damages for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, defendant appeals from an order denying its renewed motion to vacate and annul a warrant of attachment. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The court had jurisdiction to grant the warrant in its discretion (Civ. Prae. Act, §§ 902, 903; Haebler v. Bernharth, 115 N. T. 459), and upon the hearing of the instant motion it was proper to consider the additional affidavit offered by plaintiff to show that she had a prima facie case (Dexter & Garpemer v. Lake & Export Goal Corp., 196 App. Div. 766, 771). Wenzel, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action against a foreign corporation to recover damages for personal injuries and for medical expenses and loss of services, defendant appeals from an order denying its renewed motion to vacate and annul a warrant of attachment. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The court had jurisdiction to grant the warrant in its discretion (Civ. Prae. Act, §§ 902, 903; Haebler v. Bernharth, 115 N. T. 459), and upon the hearing of the instant motion it was proper to consider the additional affidavit offered by plaintiff to show that she had a prima facie case (Dexter & Garpemer v. Lake & Export Goal Corp., 196 App. Div. 766, 771). Wenzel, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1156, 140 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-gillette-co-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack