Case Name: Otto Frank, Appellant, v. Floyd L. Carlisle et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1940-07-24
Citations: 283 N.Y. 776
Docket Number: 
Parties: Otto Frank, Appellant, v. Floyd L. Carlisle et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 283
Pages: 776–776

Head Matter:
Otto Frank, Appellant, v. Floyd L. Carlisle et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others.
Submitted July 23, 1940;
decided July 24, 1940.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The only question presented by counsel on the appeal in this action related to the sufficiency of the complaint in the allegations regarding the so-called Oswego transactions and, as the per curiam, opinion shows, that was the only portion of the complaint considered by us in our determination reversing the judgment of the Appellate Division. Other portions of the complaint were disregarded upon the express statement of the appellant's counsel that we need not consider them.
The motion for reargument should be denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 282 N. Y. 507.)
The motion to amend the remittitur should be denied.