Schulman v. Modern Industrial Bank
266 A.D. 833, 43 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4719
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 18, 1943·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and order and deny the motion on the ground that the allegation that plaintiff “ was served with a subpoena requiring his appearance for examination by the District Attorney of Bronx County, at the complaint of defendant herein,” coupled with the other allegations, set forth an interference with plaintiff’s person. The complaint is, therefore, sufficient. [178 Misc. 847.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Schulman v. Modern Industrial Bank, 266 A.D. 833, 43 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).
266 A.D. 833 (Schulman v. Modern Industrial Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Salamanca Trust Co. v. McHugh
156 A.D.2d 1007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Lincoln First Bank v. Siegel
60 A.D.2d 270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Atwood v. Kerlin
169 F. Supp. 135 (S.D. New York, 1957)
Luckett v. Cohen
169 F. Supp. 808 (S.D. New York, 1956)