W. N. Britton Realty Co. v. Clay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

W. N. Britton Realty Co. v. Clay

254 A.D. 810, 4 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7705

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

DecidedMay 4, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 810 (W. N. Britton Realty Co. v. Clay) 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

W. N. Britton Realty Co. v. Clay, 254 A.D. 810, 4 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered October 29, 1937, modified by making William L. Clay plaintiff in the consolidated action with the right to open and close, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the respondent against the appellant. Appeal from order entered November 4, 1937, dismissed, with ten dollars costs, on the ground that the order is not appealable. All concur. (.The first order denies defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and grants plaintiff’s motion to consolidate a Rochester City Court action with the above-entitled action. The second order denies defendant’s motion for a reargument. The action is to recover damages for malpractice.) Present —■ Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order entered October 29, 1937, modified by making William L. Clay plaintiff in the consolidated action with the right to open and close, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the respondent against the appellant. Appeal from order entered November 4, 1937, dismissed, with ten dollars costs, on the ground that the order is not appealable. All concur. (.The first order denies defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and grants plaintiff’s motion to consolidate a Rochester City Court action with the above-entitled action. The second order denies defendant’s motion for a reargument. The action is to recover damages for malpractice.) Present —■ Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 810, 4 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-n-britton-realty-co-v-clay-nyappdiv-1938.