Bazerman v. Gan-Thi Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bazerman v. Gan-Thi Enterprises, Inc.

189 A.D.2d 744, 592 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 197

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 744 (Bazerman v. Gan-Thi Enterprises, Inc.) 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

Bazerman v. Gan-Thi Enterprises, Inc., 189 A.D.2d 744, 592 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In five consolidated actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant, Michael Gangi Plumbing & Heating Contractors, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated December 13, 1990, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 5 insofar as it is asserted against it, on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to timely comply with a conditional preclusion order, entered upon their consent, and instead imposed a monetary sanction of $250 to be paid by the plaintiffs’ attorney to the defendant’s attorney.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

Since the appellant accepted payment of the sanction imposed and thereby derived a benefit from the order appealed from, the appeal must be dismissed (Chirkis v E. F. Hutton & Co., 155 AD2d 411; Rosner v East Nassau Med. Group, 119 AD2d 563; Carmichael v General Elec. Co., 102 AD2d 838; Mosera v City of New York, 93 AD2d 833). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In five consolidated actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant, Michael Gangi Plumbing & Heating Contractors, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated December 13, 1990, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 5 insofar as it is asserted against it, on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to timely comply with a conditional preclusion order, entered upon their consent, and instead imposed a monetary sanction of $250 to be paid by the plaintiffs’ attorney to the defendant’s attorney.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

Since the appellant accepted payment of the sanction imposed and thereby derived a benefit from the order appealed from, the appeal must be dismissed (Chirkis v E. F. Hutton & Co., 155 AD2d 411; Rosner v East Nassau Med. Group, 119 AD2d 563; Carmichael v General Elec. Co., 102 AD2d 838; Mosera v City of New York, 93 AD2d 833). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 744, 592 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bazerman-v-gan-thi-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack