Sonkin v. Sullivan

New York Court of Appeals

Sonkin v. Sullivan

155 N.E. 901, 244 N.Y. 571, 1927 N.Y. LEXIS 1108

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 23, 1927·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The interest of the plaintiff as a lot owner is too remote to enable him to bring this action to obtain adjudication of the rights of a third party against the cemetery corporation.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. Certified question answered in the negative.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur; Kellogg, J., absent.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

The interest of the plaintiff as a lot owner is too remote to enable him to bring this action to obtain adjudication of the rights of a third party against the cemetery corporation.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. Certified question answered in the negative.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur; Kellogg, J., absent.

Ordered accordingly.

Sonkin v. Sullivan, 155 N.E. 901, 244 N.Y. 571, 1927 N.Y. LEXIS 1108 (N.Y. 1927).

Pincite

155 N.E. 901 (Sonkin v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.