Case Name: William H. Silk, Respondent, v. The Bowery Savings Bank and James A. Stenhouse, Appellants, Valden Realty Corporation and Others, Defendants and Appellants Eighty-five Park Avenue Corporation and Conoco Corporation, Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1942-02-27
Citations: 263 A.D. 951
Docket Number: Appeal No. 1; Appeal No. 2
Parties: William H. Silk, Respondent, v. The Bowery Savings Bank and James A. Stenhouse, Appellants, Valden Realty Corporation and Others, Defendants and Appellants Eighty-five Park Avenue Corporation and Conoco Corporation, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 951–952

Head Matter:
William H. Silk, Respondent, v. The Bowery Savings Bank and James A. Stenhouse, Appellants, Valden Realty Corporation and Others, Defendants and Appellants Eighty-five Park Avenue Corporation and Conoco Corporation, Defendants.
(Appeal No. 1) (Appeal No. 2),

Opinion:
Order entered January 21, 1942, denying motion for a prior and separate trial of certain issues, unanimously reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.