Legal Opinion

Brokaw v. Fairchild

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 24, 1929PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHammer, J.

This is an action under section 473 of the Civil Practice Act and rules 210 to 212 of the Rules of Civil Practice, in which plaintiff asks that it be declared and adjudged that the *71plaintiff, upon giving such security as the court may direct, has the right, and is authorized to remove the present structures p~a ’mprovements on or affecting the real property No. 1 East Seventy-ninth street, or any part thereof, except the party wall, and to erect new structures and improvements thereon in accordance with certain proposed plans and specifications.

Decision was reserved upon motions to dismiss.…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Williams v. . BarkleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
  2. Kidd v. DennisonNew York Supreme Court · 1849
  3. Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Winship v. PittsNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
  5. Cosgriff v. . DeweyNew York Court of Appeals · 1900

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Two Guys v. S.F.R. Realty AssociatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Crewe Corp. v. FeilerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
  3. Brokaw v. FairchildAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
  4. In re the Construction of the Will of StukaloNew York Surrogate's Court · 1957
  5. Dubrowsky v. BenedictNew York Supreme Court · 1971

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API