From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lamchick v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1918
186 App. Div. 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)

Opinion

December, 1918.


Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Jenks, P.J., Putnam and Kelly, JJ., concurred. Blackmar and Jaycox, JJ., dissented on the ground that this is an action at law for the breach of a contract, and by far the greater portion of the complaint is irrelevant, immaterial and redundant.


Summaries of

Lamchick v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1918
186 App. Div. 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)
Case details for

Lamchick v. Goldstein

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS LAMCHICK, Respondent, Appellant, v. ROBERT GOLDSTEIN and Others…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1918

Citations

186 App. Div. 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)