Hoeflich v. Kreeger

Full title: RUBY HOEFLICH, Respondent, v. MEYER KREEGER, Appellant

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 20, 1946

271 App. Div. 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)

Opinion

December 20, 1946.

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County.

Per 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; Charmante 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, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied.

Martin, P.J., Townley, Dore, Callahan and Peck, JJ., concur.

Order and judgment unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied. [See post, p. 926.]