Teitelbaum v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teitelbaum v. Friedman

56 A.D.2d 626, 391 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10726

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 626 (Teitelbaum v. Friedman) 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

Teitelbaum v. Friedman, 56 A.D.2d 626, 391 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In adefamation action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 24, 1976, which denied his motion to resettle a prior order of the same court, dated May 13, 1976, which order, inter alia, designated the Union of Orthodox Rabbis as arbitrator. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted to the extent that the order of May 13, 1976 is resettled by adding thereto a provision that the arbitrators to be designated by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis to hear and determine the controversy between the parties shall not be any of the rabbis who formerly sat in any proceeding in which the defendant was involved, or any rabbi residing in the Borough of Brooklyn. Under the circumstances of this case, the added provision should have been made part of the order under review. Rabin, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In adefamation action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 24, 1976, which denied his motion to resettle a prior order of the same court, dated May 13, 1976, which order, inter alia, designated the Union of Orthodox Rabbis as arbitrator. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted to the extent that the order of May 13, 1976 is resettled by adding thereto a provision that the arbitrators to be designated by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis to hear and determine the controversy between the parties shall not be any of the rabbis who formerly sat in any proceeding in which the defendant was involved, or any rabbi residing in the Borough of Brooklyn. Under the circumstances of this case, the added provision should have been made part of the order under review. Rabin, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 626, 391 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teitelbaum-v-friedman-nyappdiv-1977.