Stowell v. Trustees Santoro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stowell v. Trustees Santoro

256 A.D. 826, 10 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5038

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 826 (Stowell v. Trustees Santoro) 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

Stowell v. Trustees Santoro, 256 A.D. 826, 10 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to include in the record on appeal the minutes of the board of trustees of the village of Mamaroneek as of October 7, 1937, without printing same, granted to the extent that the original minutes will be received and 'che record amended accordingly. The return is complete, showing that the trustees voted on two charges — the first consisting of four items, including the bribery charge, and the second consisting of three items. The stenographer’s minutes show that the .trustees voted on the first charge but do not state the items considered. Although the return is complete and conclusive, to make the record clear beyond doubt the original minutes of respondents will be received and the record amended accordingly. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ.

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

Motion to include in the record on appeal the minutes of the board of trustees of the village of Mamaroneek as of October 7, 1937, without printing same, granted to the extent that the original minutes will be received and 'che record amended accordingly. The return is complete, showing that the trustees voted on two charges — the first consisting of four items, including the bribery charge, and the second consisting of three items. The stenographer’s minutes show that the .trustees voted on the first charge but do not state the items considered. Although the return is complete and conclusive, to make the record clear beyond doubt the original minutes of respondents will be received and the record amended accordingly. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 826, 10 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stowell-v-trustees-santoro-nyappdiv-1939.