Rosenfeld v. Hittleman
This text of 235 A.D. 623 (Rosenfeld v. Hittleman) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
235 A.D. 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenfeld-v-hittleman-nyappdiv-1932.