Ambassador Factors Corp. v. Rosenbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ambassador Factors Corp. v. Rosenbaum

57 A.D.2d 938, 394 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12199

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

DecidedMay 31, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 938 (Ambassador Factors Corp. v. Rosenbaum) 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

Ambassador Factors Corp. v. Rosenbaum, 57 A.D.2d 938, 394 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action in which a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff upon defendants-respondents’ confession of judgment, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 2, 1977, as granted the branch of defendants’ motion which sought a protective order staying execution of the judgment as against their home during the pendency of a separate plenary action commenced by them. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Special Term did not abuse its discretion when it granted the branch of defendants’ motion which sought to stay execution of the judgment as against their house. Martuscello, J. P., Cohalan, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In an action in which a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff upon defendants-respondents’ confession of judgment, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 2, 1977, as granted the branch of defendants’ motion which sought a protective order staying execution of the judgment as against their home during the pendency of a separate plenary action commenced by them. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Special Term did not abuse its discretion when it granted the branch of defendants’ motion which sought to stay execution of the judgment as against their house. Martuscello, J. P., Cohalan, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 938, 394 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ambassador-factors-corp-v-rosenbaum-nyappdiv-1977.