Rubin v. Mary & Clara England Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubin v. Mary & Clara England Corp.

232 A.D. 700

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D. 700 (Rubin v. Mary & Clara England 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

Rubin v. Mary & Clara England Corp., 232 A.D. 700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Order canceling stipulation reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for such order denied, with ten dollars costs. Order denying motion to vacate order adjudging appellant in contempt reversed upon the law and the facts, without costs, and motion granted, without costs. By entering into the stipulation, which in terms vacated the contempt order, without reserving the right to rearrest appellant, a new agreement was made. Thereby the respondent waived and abandoned any right she may have had to enforce the contempt order. She must now seek her rights and remedies under the agreement. It cannot be declared a nullity upon a motion. Kapper, Hagarty, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents.

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

Order canceling stipulation reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for such order denied, with ten dollars costs. Order denying motion to vacate order adjudging appellant in contempt reversed upon the law and the facts, without costs, and motion granted, without costs. By entering into the stipulation, which in terms vacated the contempt order, without reserving the right to rearrest appellant, a new agreement was made. Thereby the respondent waived and abandoned any right she may have had to enforce the contempt order. She must now seek her rights and remedies under the agreement. It cannot be declared a nullity upon a motion. Kapper, Hagarty, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D. 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-mary-clara-england-corp-nyappdiv-1931.