Austrian Lance & Stewart, P. C. v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Austrian Lance & Stewart, P. C. v. Jackson

51 A.D.2d 942, 381 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11641

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 942 (Austrian Lance & Stewart, P. C. v. Jackson) 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

Austrian Lance & Stewart, P. C. v. Jackson, 51 A.D.2d 942, 381 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 31, 1974, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In connection with the appeal from the judgment, we have, pursuant to CPLR 5501 (subd [a], par 1), reviewed the order entered December 2, 1972 granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directing an assessment of damages; and we affirm said order. When, following the grant of summary judgment, the matter came on for trial to assess the damages, the parties entered into a stipulation agreeing that the reasonable value of the' services sued upon was $50,000. Hence the only question remaining on this appeal is the validity of the order granting summary judgment. We affirm that order for the reasons given by Bloustein, J., in his opinion granting the motion. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 31, 1974, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In connection with the appeal from the judgment, we have, pursuant to CPLR 5501 (subd [a], par 1), reviewed the order entered December 2, 1972 granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directing an assessment of damages; and we affirm said order. When, following the grant of summary judgment, the matter came on for trial to assess the damages, the parties entered into a stipulation agreeing that the reasonable value of the' services sued upon was $50,000. Hence the only question remaining on this appeal is the validity of the order granting summary judgment. We affirm that order for the reasons given by Bloustein, J., in his opinion granting the motion. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 942, 381 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austrian-lance-stewart-p-c-v-jackson-nyappdiv-1976.