Wexler v. Maurer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wexler v. Maurer

235 A.D. 766

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 766 (Wexler v. Maurer) 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

Wexler v. Maurer, 235 A.D. 766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified by providing that Emil W. and Samuel Wexler shall be deemed plaintiffs and Andrew and Katherine Maurer defendants in the consolidated action, the claim of Katherine Maurer to be treated in the same way as though it were a counterclaim. The right of Emil and Samuel Wexler to be treated as plaintiffs as to all the claims involved rests on the earlier commencement of the actions in which they were plaintiffs taken in connection with the fact that they were the respondents at Special Term upon the motion to consolidate. As to Katherine Maurer, who joined with Andrew Maurer in the motion to consolidate, [767]*767she should be treated as a defendant with a counterclaim. The right to open and close is to be given to the plaintiffs Emil and Samuel Wexler. All concur. Present ■— Taylor, Edgeomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

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

Order modified by providing that Emil W. and Samuel Wexler shall be deemed plaintiffs and Andrew and Katherine Maurer defendants in the consolidated action, the claim of Katherine Maurer to be treated in the same way as though it were a counterclaim. The right of Emil and Samuel Wexler to be treated as plaintiffs as to all the claims involved rests on the earlier commencement of the actions in which they were plaintiffs taken in connection with the fact that they were the respondents at Special Term upon the motion to consolidate. As to Katherine Maurer, who joined with Andrew Maurer in the motion to consolidate, [767]*767she should be treated as a defendant with a counterclaim. The right to open and close is to be given to the plaintiffs Emil and Samuel Wexler. All concur. Present ■— Taylor, Edgeomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wexler-v-maurer-nyappdiv-1932.