MANDEL v. BRODSKY


200 Misc. 344 (1951)

Daniel Mandel, Appellant, v. David Brodsky, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 29, 1951.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Aaron I. Schwartz for appellant.

Pincus Cashman for respondent.

HAMMER and EDER, JJ., concur; HOFSTADTER, J., concurs in result.


Per Curiam.

There can be no question but that section 164 of the Civil Practice Act as amended in 1934 (L. 1934, ch. 504), governed the service of the summons in this proceeding in 1936. The case of Schulte Real Estate Co. v. Pirkig (191 Misc. 926), therefore, does not apply.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and judgment reinstated.

Order...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases