TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Netter v. Freidus

George E. Netter, as Executors of Samuel E. Aaron v. Jacob Freidus

Netter v. Freidus, 25 A.D.2d 423 (1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 25, 1966
Judges
Botein, Breitel, Eager, Steuer, Valente
Citations
25 A.D.2d 423267 N.Y.S.2d 4781966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5095

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Appeal from order, entered October 27, 1965, insofar as it modified prior order entered August 11, 1965, to eliminate countersignature requirements on cheeks and withdrawals from bank accounts of corporate defendants, unanimously dismissed, without costs and disbursements to any party, and without prejudice. Counsel for the parties agreed on the argument and have stipulated to a trial on January 26, 1966, or as soon thereafter as the cause is reached, of the issues raised by the first separate and complete defense of defendants Freidus and Pacific Management Corporation; and such trial may result in the disposal of the action. In the meantime, and pending such trial and the entry of an order or judgment on the determination thereat, the stay of the enforcement of the said order entered October 26, 1965, as provided for in the order of this court, entered November 16, 1965, is continued. The dismissal of the appeal is without prejudice to any proper application to the Trial Justice during the trial or at Special Term following the trial; and is also without prejudice, following the trial, to an application to reinstate the appeal hereby dismissed, but counsel are cautioned that any determination of this appeal on the merits would be based upon the proceedings, papers and facts contained in the present record. Settle order on notice.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list