Case ID: misc_186/html/0107-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Memorandum Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel Galtrof, Respondent, v. I. G. Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    December 21, 1945.
    
      
      Herbert 8. Ogden for appellant.
    
      H. David Fraclcman and Michael E. Rosenstein for respondent.
   Memorandum Per Curiam.

It was error to deny the defendant’s motion for a stay. (See Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaca, &c., 248 U. S. 9.) In the circumstances summary judgment should not have been granted.

The order denying motion for stay should be reversed, and motion granted, with $10 costs and disbursements. The judgment and order granting summary judgment should be vacated. The order of April 30, 1942, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed.

Hammer, McLaughlin and Eder, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.