200 Central Park South, Inc. v. Posner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

200 Central Park South, Inc. v. Posner

30 A.D.2d 523, 291 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3896

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 23, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 523 (200 Central Park South, Inc. v. Posner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

200 Central Park South, Inc. v. Posner, 30 A.D.2d 523, 291 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. This court’s decision in Salmon v. Sarno (265 App. Div. 114) is distinguishable from the instant ease. Salmon was determined upon affidavits alone, submitted upon a motion to vacate a judgment. In the instant case, even though the matter originally came on at Trial Term on submitted facts, pursuant to CPLR 3222, the trial court directed and held a hearing on the limited issue involved, so that “ both parties should be afforded the fullest opportunity of presenting all relevant evidence and testimony * * * on the merits.” At the hearing the postman on the route, which included 15 East 49th Street, was produced by defendant, and he testified in such a manner as to enable the trial court to determine the issue before it as one of fact. In the Salmon case, the court did not pass upon the question of the effect of actual notice. Concur — Eager, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. This court’s decision in Salmon v. Sarno (265 App. Div. 114) is distinguishable from the instant ease. Salmon was determined upon affidavits alone, submitted upon a motion to vacate a judgment. In the instant case, even though the matter originally came on at Trial Term on submitted facts, pursuant to CPLR 3222, the trial court directed and held a hearing on the limited issue involved, so that “ both parties should be afforded the fullest opportunity of presenting all relevant evidence and testimony * * * on the merits.” At the hearing the postman on the route, which included 15 East 49th Street, was produced by defendant, and he testified in such a manner as to enable the trial court to determine the issue before it as one of fact. In the Salmon case, the court did not pass upon the question of the effect of actual notice. Concur — Eager, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 523, 291 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/200-central-park-south-inc-v-posner-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack