New York Court of Appeals, 1944

Dailey v. Gidinsky

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 30, 1944 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>

59 N.E.2d 790; 293 N.Y. 889; 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 2305 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The final judgment should be modified by striking therefr'om 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., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thachek, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.