Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. Scarpulla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. Scarpulla

145 A.D.2d 457

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 145 A.D.2d 457 (Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. Scarpulla) 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

Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. Scarpulla, 145 A.D.2d 457 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for breach of contract on an auto lease, (1) the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), dated December 4, 1986, as dismissed its complaint, and (2) the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as dismissed the third-party complaint as against it.

Ordered that the appeal by the third-party defendant is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as it is not aggrieved by that order (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Saladino in his memorandum decision at the Supreme Court. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for breach of contract on an auto lease, (1) the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), dated December 4, 1986, as dismissed its complaint, and (2) the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as dismissed the third-party complaint as against it.

Ordered that the appeal by the third-party defendant is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as it is not aggrieved by that order (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Saladino in his memorandum decision at the Supreme Court. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barco-auto-leasing-corp-v-scarpulla-nyappdiv-1988.