AJW Partners, LLC v. Peak Entertainment Holdings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

AJW Partners, LLC v. Peak Entertainment Holdings, Inc.

51 A.D.3d 505, 856 N.Y.S.2d 485

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

DecidedMay 13, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 505 (AJW Partners, LLC v. Peak Entertainment Holdings, Inc.) 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

AJW Partners, LLC v. Peak Entertainment Holdings, Inc., 51 A.D.3d 505, 856 N.Y.S.2d 485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered April 24, 2007, as amended July 18, 2007, which, after a nonjury trial, declared that defendant breached the parties’ settlement agreement and, inter alia, directed defendant to purchase its stock held by plaintiff as required by the agreement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s challenges to the admissibility of a deposition transcript transcribed in London and an e-mail were waived by the failure to raise the specific objections now urged (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. [Brooklyn Nav. Shipyard Cases], 188 AD2d 214, 225-226 [1993], affd 82 NY2d 821 [1993]; Short v Short, 142 AD2d 947, 948 [1988]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered April 24, 2007, as amended July 18, 2007, which, after a nonjury trial, declared that defendant breached the parties’ settlement agreement and, inter alia, directed defendant to purchase its stock held by plaintiff as required by the agreement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s challenges to the admissibility of a deposition transcript transcribed in London and an e-mail were waived by the failure to raise the specific objections now urged (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. [Brooklyn Nav. Shipyard Cases], 188 AD2d 214, 225-226 [1993], affd 82 NY2d 821 [1993]; Short v Short, 142 AD2d 947, 948 [1988]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 505, 856 N.Y.S.2d 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ajw-partners-llc-v-peak-entertainment-holdings-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack