Thompson v. Orange & Rockland Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Orange & Rockland Electric Co.

228 A.D. 672

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1929

DocketAction No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D. 672 (Thompson v. Orange & Rockland Electric Co.) 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

Thompson v. Orange & Rockland Electric Co., 228 A.D. 672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

■— Order granting plaintiff's motion for injunction pendente lite and denying defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Order granting reargument but confirming said order upon condition affirmed, without costs. No opimon. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to reverse upon the ground that this issue could have been disposed of under the pleadings in the former action, and, therefore, the question is res adjudícata.

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

■— Order granting plaintiff's motion for injunction pendente lite and denying defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Order granting reargument but confirming said order upon condition affirmed, without costs. No opimon. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to reverse upon the ground that this issue could have been disposed of under the pleadings in the former action, and, therefore, the question is res adjudícata.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D. 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-orange-rockland-electric-co-nyappdiv-1929.