Terraqua Corp. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank
This text of 273 A.D. 254 (Terraqua Corp. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank) 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.
Opinion
Successive actions for declaratory judgment should not be permitted in order to give a litigant an opportunity to raise some additional point which he failed to present in a former action: In any event, on the merits, the decision of the court below as to the second and third causes of action was [257]*257correct. If, and we do not so decide, the plaintiff has á" valid claim with respect to the item for temporary repairs, the cost of refrigerator- and gas stove and the adjustment of interest referred to in the complaint, he should be relegated to an action at law, in the proper forum. (Newburger v. Lubell, 257 N. Y. 383; James v. Alderton Dock Yards, 256 N. Y. 298, 304-306.)
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.
Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
273 A.D. 254, 76 N.Y.S.2d 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terraqua-corp-v-emigrant-industrial-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1948.