Case Name: Nathan Goodman and Max Goodman, Doing Business as Goodman Bros., Plaintiffs, v. W. W. Construction Co., Inc., and Another, Defendants. (Action No. 1.); Bernard Rosenbaum, Respondent, v. W. W. Construction Co., Inc., Appellant, and Others, Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1942-01-12
Citations: 263 A.D. 879
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nathan Goodman and Max Goodman, Doing Business as Goodman Bros., Plaintiffs, v. W. W. Construction Co., Inc., and Another, Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Bernard Rosenbaum, Respondent, v. W. W. Construction Co., Inc., Appellant, and Others, Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 879–879

Head Matter:
Nathan Goodman and Max Goodman, Doing Business as Goodman Bros., Plaintiffs, v. W. W. Construction Co., Inc., and Another, Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Bernard Rosenbaum, Respondent, v. W. W. Construction Co., Inc., Appellant, and Others, Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

Opinion:
Two consolidated actions. In Action No. 2, to recover on an assignment of a painting subcontractor's claim against the general building contractor, order granting plaintiff's motion to strike out answer of defendant W. W. Construction Co., Inc., and for summary judgment, order granting reargument and on reargument modifying the aforesaid order, and judgment entered thereon reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without costs. In addition to the question of the validity of the assignment there are questions of fact to be tried, particularly that as to the ownership of the same fund. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.