Rosenblatt v. Firestone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenblatt v. Firestone

12 A.D.2d 481, 209 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6904

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 481 (Rosenblatt v. Firestone) 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

Rosenblatt v. Firestone, 12 A.D.2d 481, 209 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law, to delete therefrom all of the ordering and adjudicating paragraphs excepting only the final paragraphs thereof, with costs to appellant, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied, with $10 costs. It appears from the record that there exist issues of fact which may only be resolved at a trial. The affirmance of the order insofar as it denies defendant’s cross motion is without prejudice to an application by plaintiffs Rosenblatt and Klinger for a stay of the action brought by Firestone against them pending the trial of the action by Rosenblatt and Klinger. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ. Motion for a stay dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision of this court herein. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law, to delete therefrom all of the ordering and adjudicating paragraphs excepting only the final paragraphs thereof, with costs to appellant, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied, with $10 costs. It appears from the record that there exist issues of fact which may only be resolved at a trial. The affirmance of the order insofar as it denies defendant’s cross motion is without prejudice to an application by plaintiffs Rosenblatt and Klinger for a stay of the action brought by Firestone against them pending the trial of the action by Rosenblatt and Klinger. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ. Motion for a stay dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision of this court herein. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 481, 209 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenblatt-v-firestone-nyappdiv-1960.