Ahuja v. Ahuja

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ahuja v. Ahuja

291 A.D.2d 364, 736 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1283

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 364 (Ahuja v. Ahuja) 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

Ahuja v. Ahuja, 291 A.D.2d 364, 736 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated December 16, 1999, and the plaintiff husband cross-appeals from stated portions of the same judgment.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that it has been rendered academic; and it is further,

[365]*365Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as abandoned (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]).

On April 24, 2001, the parties placed an oral stipulation upon the record in open court which effectively disposed of the issues raised by the defendant on her appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as academic. Feuerstein, J.P., S. Miller, Cozier and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated December 16, 1999, and the plaintiff husband cross-appeals from stated portions of the same judgment.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that it has been rendered academic; and it is further,

[365]*365Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as abandoned (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]).

On April 24, 2001, the parties placed an oral stipulation upon the record in open court which effectively disposed of the issues raised by the defendant on her appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as academic. Feuerstein, J.P., S. Miller, Cozier and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 364, 736 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahuja-v-ahuja-nyappdiv-2002.