Rosenblum v. Westin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenblum v. Westin

155 N.Y.S. 102

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 1, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 155 N.Y.S. 102 (Rosenblum v. Westin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosenblum v. Westin, 155 N.Y.S. 102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

This action was brought to recover rent under a lease, it being alleged that the defendants were the assignees of the lessee. The “particulars” which are concerned in the present motion were a true and correct copy of assignments of the lease.

[103]*103Plaintiff insists on stating merely the purport of these alleged writings, with the further statement that the papers are in the possession of the defendants, and that the latter have refused to furnish plaintiff copies. If that be so, plaintiff had a simple remedy. Chittenden v. San Domingo Improvement Co., 132 App. Div. 169, 116 N. Y. Supp. 829. Plaintiff having failed to comply with the order of the court, the order of preclusion should have been made.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

This action was brought to recover rent under a lease, it being alleged that the defendants were the assignees of the lessee. The “particulars” which are concerned in the present motion were a true and correct copy of assignments of the lease.

[103]*103Plaintiff insists on stating merely the purport of these alleged writings, with the further statement that the papers are in the possession of the defendants, and that the latter have refused to furnish plaintiff copies. If that be so, plaintiff had a simple remedy. Chittenden v. San Domingo Improvement Co., 132 App. Div. 169, 116 N. Y. Supp. 829. Plaintiff having failed to comply with the order of the court, the order of preclusion should have been made.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 N.Y.S. 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenblum-v-westin-nyappterm-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack