Case Name: Nicholas Roerich, Helena Roerich, Maurice M. Lichtmann, Sina Lichtmann and Frances R. Grant, Appellants, v. Louis L. Horch, Nettie S. Horch, and Master Institute of United Arts, Inc., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1938-04-22
Citations: 254 A.D. 663
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nicholas Roerich, Helena Roerich, Maurice M. Lichtmann, Sina Lichtmann and Frances R. Grant, Appellants, v. Louis L. Horch, Nettie S. Horch, and Master Institute of United Arts, Inc., Respondents.
Judges: Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.; O’Malley, J., dissents; dissenting opinion by O’Malley, J.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 254
Pages: 663–663

Head Matter:
(April 22, 1938.)
Nicholas Roerich, Helena Roerich, Maurice M. Lichtmann, Sina Lichtmann and Frances R. Grant, Appellants, v. Louis L. Horch, Nettie S. Horch, and Master Institute of United Arts, Inc., Respondents.
Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.; O’Malley, J., dissents; dissenting opinion by O’Malley, J.

Opinion:
O'Malley, J.
(dissenting). The indisputable documentary evidence bearing on the main issues presented was of such a character that a finding in favor of plaintiffs was required. (Duryea v. Zimmerman, 143 App. Div. 60, 68; Susquehanna Silk Mills v. Jacobson, 185 id. 378, 383. See, also, Bernstein v. Kritzer, 253 N. Y. 410, 416.) I, therefore, dissent and vote to reverse and grant judgment for the plaintiffs as prayed for in the complaint and to dismiss the counterclaims.