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

Halpern v. Budner

Halpern v. Budner, 5 A.D.2d 1011 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1958)

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1958-04-28
Topic
general

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, convicting appellant, after trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to serve from 7½ to 10 years. Judgment unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Halpern v. Budner. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
HALPERN v. BUDNER,5 A.D.2d 1011[2d Dept 1958]
JOSEPH HALPERN, Appellant, v. SOLOMON H. BUDNER, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
April 28, 1958
In an action founded upon alleged errors and negligence on the part of a certified public accountant, the appeal is (1) from so much of an order granting a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 106, subd. 4), and (2) from the judgment entered thereon. Order and judgment modified by striking from the first ordering paragraph of the order and from the first decretal paragraph of the judgment everything between "a new action" and "and it is" and order further modified by striking from the second ordering paragraph everything between "by the plaintiff" and "and it is." As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, and judgment unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. While it would seem that appellant's cause of action should be predicated on a fixation of damages by the Federal court (seePeoplev.Metropolitan Sur. Co.,211 N.Y. 107), it may be that he will be able to state a cause of action on some other theory, and the court should not limit him in his choice of remedies.
Present — Nolan P.J., Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.