Opinion · Nylaw New York

GOLDMAN v. SONTAG, 259 App. Div. 949 (1940)

SADIE GOLDMAN, Appellant, v. ANNA SONTAG, ABRAHAM SONTAG, ROSE PARK CORP.,AGASSIZ REALTY CORP., H. KIMMELMAN CO., INC., HARRY KIMMELMAN, & Others,Respondents., 259 A.D. 949 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department. 1940)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1940-05-15
Topic: general

GOLDMAN v. SONTAG, 259 App. Div. 949 (1940) SADIE GOLDMAN, Appellant, v. ANNA SONTAG, ABRAHAM SONTAG, ROSE PARK CORP.,AGASSIZ REALTY CORP., H. KIMMELMAN CO., INC., HARRY KIMMELMAN, and Others,Respondents.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed GOLDMAN v. SONTAG, 259 App. Div. 949 (1940). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

GOLDMAN v. SONTAG,259 App. Div. 949(1940)

SADIE GOLDMAN, Appellant, v. ANNA SONTAG, ABRAHAM SONTAG, ROSE PARK CORP.,

AGASSIZ REALTY CORP., H. KIMMELMAN CO., INC., HARRY KIMMELMAN, and Others,

Respondents.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.

May 15, 1940.

Motion denied.

Present — Hill, P.J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Schenck, JJ. [Seepost, p. 959.]