Antonsen v. Ward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antonsen v. Ward

190 A.D.2d 606, 594 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1660

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 606 (Antonsen v. Ward) 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

Antonsen v. Ward, 190 A.D.2d 606, 594 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, J.) entered January 9, 1992, which denied petitioner’s motion to amend the judgment, dated August 10, 1989, so as to include overtime, vacation days and uniform allowances in the award of back pay and to direct respondent to allow petitioner to take the sergeant’s exam, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

No appeal lies from an order denying resettlement of the substantive portions of a judgment or order (Murphy v Wack, 186 AD2d 427). Since the amendment petitioner seeks involves substantive issues relating to the interplay between the judg[607]*607merit and purported rights arising under the Union contract, our decision in Murphy v Wack (supra) is controlling, and the appeal must be dismissed. Nor is there any basis to amend the judgment in other respects urged by petitioner. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Ross, JJ.

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

— Appeal from an order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, J.) entered January 9, 1992, which denied petitioner’s motion to amend the judgment, dated August 10, 1989, so as to include overtime, vacation days and uniform allowances in the award of back pay and to direct respondent to allow petitioner to take the sergeant’s exam, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

No appeal lies from an order denying resettlement of the substantive portions of a judgment or order (Murphy v Wack, 186 AD2d 427). Since the amendment petitioner seeks involves substantive issues relating to the interplay between the judg[607]*607merit and purported rights arising under the Union contract, our decision in Murphy v Wack (supra) is controlling, and the appeal must be dismissed. Nor is there any basis to amend the judgment in other respects urged by petitioner. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 606, 594 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonsen-v-ward-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack