Lamchick v. Goldstein , 186 A.D. 967 ( 1918 )

Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Putnam and Kelly, JJ., concurred; Blaekmar and Jay-cox, JJ., dissented on the ground that this is an action at law for the breach of a contract, and by far the greater portion of the complaint is irrelevant, immaterial and redundant.