Sacks v. Sacks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sacks v. Sacks

22 A.D.2d 861, 254 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4607

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 861 (Sacks v. Sacks) 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

Sacks v. Sacks, 22 A.D.2d 861, 254 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on April 20, 1964, unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Order of the Family Court dated July 15, 1964 unanimously affirmed, without costs. The conditional denial of the motion for a new trial or a reopening of the proceedings adequately removes the finality, if any, of the prior determination by the court. Consequently there is no possibility of impediment in the consideration of the issues de novo in the pending action in the Supreme Court on grounds of res judicata or estoppel. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on April 20, 1964, unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Order of the Family Court dated July 15, 1964 unanimously affirmed, without costs. The conditional denial of the motion for a new trial or a reopening of the proceedings adequately removes the finality, if any, of the prior determination by the court. Consequently there is no possibility of impediment in the consideration of the issues de novo in the pending action in the Supreme Court on grounds of res judicata or estoppel. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 861, 254 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sacks-v-sacks-nyappdiv-1964.