From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Atkin v. Hill, Darlington Grimm

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 23, 1963
12 N.Y.2d 940 (N.Y. 1963)

Opinion

Argued January 7, 1963

Decided January 23, 1963

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, ARTHUR G. KLEIN, J.

Arnold I. Burns, Stanley T. Lesser and Jay D. Fischer for appellants-respondents.

George Zeidenstein, Charles Krupin and Joel M. Handel for respondents-appellants.


Orders affirmed, without costs. The questions certified on the appeal and the cross appeal answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges FULD, FOSTER and SCILEPPI. Judges DYE, VAN VOORHIS and BURKE dissent and vote to modify and to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that under the applicable statute criminal liability is the exclusive redress for its violation ( Sajor v. Ampol, Inc., 275 N.Y. 125; Rosasco Creameries v. Cohen, 276 N.Y. 274). The question certified on the cross appeal to this court should be answered in the negative.


Summaries of

Atkin v. Hill, Darlington Grimm

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 23, 1963
12 N.Y.2d 940 (N.Y. 1963)
Case details for

Atkin v. Hill, Darlington Grimm

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL ATKIN et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. HILL, DARLINGTON GRIMM et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 23, 1963

Citations

12 N.Y.2d 940 (N.Y. 1963)
238 N.Y.S.2d 516
188 N.E.2d 790

Citing Cases

Vegliack v. Mazzella

In Unger v. Travel Arrangements ( 25 A.D.2d 40, 43, 44), after pointing out that a violation of some statutes…

Unger v. Travel Arrangements

Section 153 of that law provides that one who violated it shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. A violation of…