Zawadsky v. Zawadsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zawadsky v. Zawadsky

258 A.D. 949, 14 N.Y.S.2d 115

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 949 (Zawadsky v. Zawadsky) 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

Zawadsky v. Zawadsky, 258 A.D. 949, 14 N.Y.S.2d 115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinions

[950]*950Appeal from order entered February 4, 1939, granting defendant’s motion for judgment dismissing the amended complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations dismissed. No opinion.

Present—Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.; O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and deny said motion; dissenting opinion by Untermyer, J.

Order entered January 14, 1939, granting defendant’s motion for judgment dismissing the amended complaint for insufficiency affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.; O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and deny said motion; dissentmg opinion by Untermyer, J.

Appeal from order entered January 14, 1939, granting defendant’s motion to strike out paragraphs Eighth and Ninth of the amended complaint as sham and frivolous dismissed. No opinion.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.; O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and deny said motion; dissentmg opinion by Untermyer, J.

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

[950]*950Appeal from order entered February 4, 1939, granting defendant’s motion for judgment dismissing the amended complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations dismissed. No opinion.

Present—Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.; O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and deny said motion; dissenting opinion by Untermyer, J.

Order entered January 14, 1939, granting defendant’s motion for judgment dismissing the amended complaint for insufficiency affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.; O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and deny said motion; dissentmg opinion by Untermyer, J.

Appeal from order entered January 14, 1939, granting defendant’s motion to strike out paragraphs Eighth and Ninth of the amended complaint as sham and frivolous dismissed. No opinion.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.; O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and deny said motion; dissentmg opinion by Untermyer, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 949, 14 N.Y.S.2d 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zawadsky-v-zawadsky-nyappdiv-1940.