Solomon v. Henry Modell & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Solomon v. Henry Modell & Co.

275 A.D.2d 699

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 699 (Solomon v. Henry Modell & Co.) 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

Solomon v. Henry Modell & Co., 275 A.D.2d 699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think that the complaint is sufficient. If upon a hearing it be determined that plaintiff is the party with whom defendant has contracted and that plaintiff is entitled to equitable aid in enforcement of defendant’s contractual obligations, plaintiff may be accorded such relief as is proper in an injunction action of this character. The order directing a hearing to be held on plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pendente lite and the order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s application for such relief without setting it down for a hearing together with the order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency should be affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent.

The date for the hearing to proceed shall be fixed in the order to be settled herein.

Crlennon, J. P,, Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Orders unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The date for the hearing to proceed shall be fixed in the order. Settle orders on notice.

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

Per Curiam.

We think that the complaint is sufficient. If upon a hearing it be determined that plaintiff is the party with whom defendant has contracted and that plaintiff is entitled to equitable aid in enforcement of defendant’s contractual obligations, plaintiff may be accorded such relief as is proper in an injunction action of this character. The order directing a hearing to be held on plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pendente lite and the order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s application for such relief without setting it down for a hearing together with the order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency should be affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent.

The date for the hearing to proceed shall be fixed in the order to be settled herein.

Crlennon, J. P,, Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Orders unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The date for the hearing to proceed shall be fixed in the order. Settle orders on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-henry-modell-co-nyappdiv-1949.