Opinion · Nylaw New York

KEIM v. OREL, 263 App. Div. 908 (1942)

HENRY KEIM & MARIE KEIM, Plaintiffs, v. ABE OREL, Defendant. (Action No.1.)ABE OREL, Plaintiff, v. HENRY KEIM & MARIE KEIM, Defendants. (Action No.2.)HELEN LEFKOWITZ, Appellant, v. HENRY KEIM & MARIE KEIM, Respondents, andABE OREL, Defendant. (Action No. 3.)MARION SANDERS MINK & HERMAN MINK, Appellants, v. HENRY KEIM, Respondent,and ABE OREL, Defendant. (Action No. 4.)ABRAHAM ALTSCHULER, Appellant

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1942-01-07
Topic: general

KEIM v. OREL, 263 App. Div. 908 (1942) HENRY KEIM and MARIE KEIM, Plaintiffs, v. ABE OREL, Defendant. (Action No.1.)ABE OREL, Plaintiff, v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed KEIM v. OREL, 263 App. Div. 908 (1942). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

KEIM v. OREL,263 App. Div. 908(1942)

HENRY KEIM and MARIE KEIM, Plaintiffs, v. ABE OREL, Defendant. (Action No.

1.)

ABE OREL, Plaintiff, v. HENRY KEIM and MARIE KEIM, Defendants. (Action No.

2.)

HELEN LEFKOWITZ, Appellant, v. HENRY KEIM and MARIE KEIM, Respondents, and

ABE OREL, Defendant. (Action No. 3.)

MARION SANDERS MINK and HERMAN MINK, Appellants, v. HENRY KEIM, Respondent,

and ABE OREL, Defendant. (Action No. 4.)

ABRAHAM ALTSCHULER, Appellant, v. ABE OREL, Defendant, and HENRY KEIM,

Respondent. (Action No. 5.)

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

January 7, 1942.

Motion for reargument denied. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.

Present — Hill, P.J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Schenck, JJ.