General

Joseph Hudson, Respondent, v. T. Richard Denzer and Joseph Nathan, Composing the Firm of Denzer & Nathan, Appellants

183 A.D. 945·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1918·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Joseph Hudson, Respondent, v. T. Richard Denzer and Joseph Nathan, Composing the Firm of Denzer & Nathan, Appellants. Order for discovery limited by excluding therefrom the items numbered 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. [MAJORITY] No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Putnam and Kelly, JJ., concurred.

Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.