Rubenfeld v. Great Park Corp.
283 A.D. 722, 127 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5069
Opinion
Defendants Great Park Corporation, Feldman and Alper appeal from so much of an order as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed on the authority of Hornstein v. Podmitz (254 N. Y. 443) and Tatarsky V. Wavecrest Bldg. Oorp. (268 App. Div. 885), with $10 costs and disbursements. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rubenfeld v. Great Park Corp., 283 A.D. 722, 127 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).
283 A.D. 722 (Rubenfeld v. Great Park Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hornstein v. Podwitz
173 N.E. 674 (New York Court of Appeals, 1930)
Tatarsky v. Wavecrest Building Corp.
268 A.D. 885 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1944)