Corporations
William H. Silk, Respondent, v. The Bowery Savings Bank and James A. Stenhouse, Appellants, Valden Realty Corporation and Others, Defendants and Appellants Eighty-five Park Avenue Corporation and Conoco Corporation, Defendants
263 A.D. 951·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1942·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
William H. Silk, Respondent, v. The Bowery Savings Bank and James A. Stenhouse, Appellants, Valden Realty Corporation and Others, Defendants and Appellants Eighty-five Park Avenue Corporation and Conoco Corporation, Defendants.
(Appeal No. 1) (Appeal No. 2),
[MAJORITY]
Order entered December 12, 1941, so far as appealed from, unanimously modified by granting item 1 of the notice of motion, and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.