Reuter v. Household Finance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reuter v. Household Finance Corp.

269 A.D. 976, 59 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4838

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1945·Published

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed. Defendant should have judgment, with costs in' the Municipal Court action which has been consolidated with the plaintiffs’ action in the Supreme Court. The statement delivered to plaintiffs by defendant was sufficient to comply with the statute (Banking Law, § 353; Rimpotti v. Household Finance Corp., 266 App. Div. 778; Di Nome v. Personal Finance Co. of New York, 291 N. Y. 250). Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed. Defendant should have judgment, with costs in' the Municipal Court action which has been consolidated with the plaintiffs’ action in the Supreme Court. The statement delivered to plaintiffs by defendant was sufficient to comply with the statute (Banking Law, § 353; Rimpotti v. Household Finance Corp., 266 App. Div. 778; Di Nome v. Personal Finance Co. of New York, 291 N. Y. 250). Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Reuter v. Household Finance Corp., 269 A.D. 976, 59 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

269 A.D. 976 (Reuter v. Household Finance Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related