Realty Associates Securities Corp. v. Cedar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Realty Associates Securities Corp. v. Cedar

237 A.D. 908

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D. 908 (Realty Associates Securities Corp. v. Cedar) 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

Realty Associates Securities Corp. v. Cedar, 237 A.D. 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and the facts in respect to defendant Myron J. Cedar, and the verdict reinstated as to him, except that the former verdict is modified by reducing the amount thereof to $5,903.22 because of errors in computation; and judgment is directed in favor of the plaintiff and against Myron J. Cedar thereon, with interest from July 1, 1931, with costs. The evidence establishes that defendant Myron J. Cedar converted certain rents collected by him while acting as agent for the plaintiff, which he has failed to turn over on demand and concerning which he has made no explanation. As to defendant Emmons B. Cedar the appeal is not pressed here and the order setting aside the verdict is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Kapper, Carswell, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order reversed on the law and the facts in respect to defendant Myron J. Cedar, and the verdict reinstated as to him, except that the former verdict is modified by reducing the amount thereof to $5,903.22 because of errors in computation; and judgment is directed in favor of the plaintiff and against Myron J. Cedar thereon, with interest from July 1, 1931, with costs. The evidence establishes that defendant Myron J. Cedar converted certain rents collected by him while acting as agent for the plaintiff, which he has failed to turn over on demand and concerning which he has made no explanation. As to defendant Emmons B. Cedar the appeal is not pressed here and the order setting aside the verdict is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Kapper, Carswell, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D. 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/realty-associates-securities-corp-v-cedar-nyappdiv-1933.