Srybnik v. Himoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Srybnik v. Himoff

31 A.D.2d 525, 294 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2883

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 525 (Srybnik v. Himoff) 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

Srybnik v. Himoff, 31 A.D.2d 525, 294 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered July 22, 1968, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted. The complaint in this action alleges two causes. The motion for summary judgment is limited to the first cause. It alleges plaintiff purchased a one-half interest in the share of respondent in a realty joint venture of the defendants. Plaintiff’s contribution, the liquidation of the joint venture and the receipt by respondent of his distributive share of the joint venture are not disputed. Plaintiff is, therefore,.entitled to judgment. (Nirdlinger v. Bernheimer, 133 N. Y. 45, 53.) Settle order providing for an assessment. Concur—Botein, P. J., Eager, Steuer, Capozzoli and McNally, JJ.

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

Order, entered July 22, 1968, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted. The complaint in this action alleges two causes. The motion for summary judgment is limited to the first cause. It alleges plaintiff purchased a one-half interest in the share of respondent in a realty joint venture of the defendants. Plaintiff’s contribution, the liquidation of the joint venture and the receipt by respondent of his distributive share of the joint venture are not disputed. Plaintiff is, therefore,.entitled to judgment. (Nirdlinger v. Bernheimer, 133 N. Y. 45, 53.) Settle order providing for an assessment. Concur—Botein, P. J., Eager, Steuer, Capozzoli and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 525, 294 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/srybnik-v-himoff-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack