Slim's Suburban Markets, Inc. v. Skevel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Slim's Suburban Markets, Inc. v. Skevel

4 A.D.2d 889, 167 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4336

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 889 (Slim's Suburban Markets, Inc. v. Skevel) 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

Slim's Suburban Markets, Inc. v. Skevel, 4 A.D.2d 889, 167 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Application for an order to vacate the restraining and injunctive provisions contained in an order to show cause granted by a Supreme Court Justice ex parte dated September 30, 1957 and the order continuing those provisions [890]*890dated October 8, 1957. “We do not believe that, in a matter of this character, a stay should have been granted ex parte.” (McCall v. Beck, 284 App. Div. 838.) Although the second order which continued the injunctive provisions contained in the order to show cause was granted after a hearing and on notice, nevertheless, it appears that the motion itself has not been decided and that the injunctive provisions of the ex parte order were merely continued by the second order. Orders vacated, without costs, and without prejudice. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ.

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

Application for an order to vacate the restraining and injunctive provisions contained in an order to show cause granted by a Supreme Court Justice ex parte dated September 30, 1957 and the order continuing those provisions [890]*890dated October 8, 1957. “We do not believe that, in a matter of this character, a stay should have been granted ex parte.” (McCall v. Beck, 284 App. Div. 838.) Although the second order which continued the injunctive provisions contained in the order to show cause was granted after a hearing and on notice, nevertheless, it appears that the motion itself has not been decided and that the injunctive provisions of the ex parte order were merely continued by the second order. Orders vacated, without costs, and without prejudice. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 889, 167 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slims-suburban-markets-inc-v-skevel-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack