Rosenfeld v. Hittleman
235 A.D. 623
Opinion
Order denying plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pendente lite affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. In the circumstances the denial was not error and, under the rule in Schenck v. Underhill (205 App. Div. 162), the exercise of discretion by the Special Term should not be disturbed. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rosenfeld v. Hittleman, 235 A.D. 623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).
235 A.D. 623 (Rosenfeld v. Hittleman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Schenck v. Underhill
205 A.D. 162 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)