Sulil Realty Corp. v. Rye Motors, Inc.
47 Misc. 2d 715, 262 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1712
Opinion
The order should be affirmed, without costs on the sole ground that title to the property in question was in the respondent, and not in the defendant, at the time the restraining notice was served.
Concur — Martuscbllo, Hogan and Ritchie, JJ.
Order affirmed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sulil Realty Corp. v. Rye Motors, Inc., 47 Misc. 2d 715, 262 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).
47 Misc. 2d 715 (Sulil Realty Corp. v. Rye Motors, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Livera v. First National State Bank
535 F. Supp. 1063 (E.D. New York, 1982)
First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Carruth
569 P.2d 1380 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1977)
Michigan National Bank v. Superior Court
23 Cal. App. 3d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 1972)
Lapinsohn v. Lewis Charles, Inc.
240 A.2d 90 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1968)