Legal Opinion

Hoeflich v. Kreeger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 20, 1946Published

1Opinion of the Court

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 23,1946, in Hew York County, which granted a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

2Per curiam

The proof and the judgment fail to conform to the mandatory requirements of section 1124 of the Civil Practice Act as to the fixation of value of the stock to be recovered. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1124; Chamante Studio v. Greenfield, 185 Misc. 266, 268 [App. Term, 1st Dept.]; Karpas v. Brussel, 217 App. Div. 550; Hammond v. Morgan, 101 N. Y. 179.)

The order and the judgment should be reversed,…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hammond v. . MorganNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
  2. Karpas v. BrusselAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
  3. Charmante Studio, Inc. v. GreenfieldAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API