Battanta v. Bunzl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Battanta v. Bunzl

251 A.D.2d 251, 673 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7684

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

DecidedJune 25, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 251 (Battanta v. Bunzl) 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

Battanta v. Bunzl, 251 A.D.2d 251, 673 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered January 14, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s oral application to remove the general counsel of a non-party corporation and replace him with counsel chosen by defendant and directed a procedure for selecting a new managing agent for the building owned by the corporation, both until the hearing adjourned to February 10, 1998, and imposed upon plaintiff the costs of defendant’s appearance on the original hearing date, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We perceive no error in the interim relief fashioned by the court, nor improvidence in the discretionary imposition of costs under the circumstances. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered January 14, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s oral application to remove the general counsel of a non-party corporation and replace him with counsel chosen by defendant and directed a procedure for selecting a new managing agent for the building owned by the corporation, both until the hearing adjourned to February 10, 1998, and imposed upon plaintiff the costs of defendant’s appearance on the original hearing date, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We perceive no error in the interim relief fashioned by the court, nor improvidence in the discretionary imposition of costs under the circumstances. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 251, 673 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battanta-v-bunzl-nyappdiv-1998.