From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dailey v. Gidinsky

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 30, 1944
59 N.E.2d 790 (N.Y. 1944)

Opinion

Argued November 28, 1944

Decided December 30, 1944

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, HECHT, J.

David Haar for appellant.

Samuel Komoroff and Edward J. Gould for respondents.


The final judgment should be modified by striking therefrom the direction for payment to the plaintiff receiver of sums to be fixed by the court in which the receivership is pending. Whether such payment shall be made to the plaintiff receiver must be determined by the court which appointed him. (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 804-a, 1547.) In all other respects, the judgments should be affirmed, with costs.

The judgments should be modified in accordance with this opinion and as so modified affirmed, with costs.

LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, RIPPEY, LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND and THACHER, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Dailey v. Gidinsky

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 30, 1944
59 N.E.2d 790 (N.Y. 1944)
Case details for

Dailey v. Gidinsky

Case Details

Full title:JOHN F. DAILEY, JR., as Trustee in Reorganization of 263 West 38th Street…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 30, 1944

Citations

59 N.E.2d 790 (N.Y. 1944)
59 N.E.2d 790

Citing Cases

Matter of 263 W. 38th St. Corp. v. Kobrinetz

" This provision was stricken out on appeal to the Court of Appeals which held that "Whether such payment…

Kilarjian v. Kilarjian

Appeal from order dated October 7, 1968 dismissed as academic, without costs. In general, all claims…