Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Rubenfeld v. Great Park Corp.

Rubenfeld v. Great Park Corp.

283 A.D. 722, 127 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5069
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 1, 1954
StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 722 (Rubenfeld v. Great Park Corp.) 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
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).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 A.D. 722, 127 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubenfeld-v-great-park-corp-nyappdiv-1954.