Siegel & Hodges v. Hodges
174 N.E.2d 533, 9 N.Y.2d 747
Opinion
Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.
Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fitld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Foster. Judge Burke dissents in the following memorandum: The complaint states a cause of action for services performed but any recovery must be limited to the value of services rendered by Siegel alone. I do not think that Special Term and the majority are correct in holding that Siegel can bring an action in his individual capacity.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Siegel & Hodges v. Hodges, 174 N.E.2d 533, 9 N.Y.2d 747 (N.Y. 1961).
174 N.E.2d 533 (Siegel & Hodges v. Hodges) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Spell
140 Misc. 2d 847 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1988)
Mount Sinai Hospital v. Burns
133 Misc. 2d 707 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1986)