Belle v. Chromalloy American Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Belle v. Chromalloy American Corp.

51 A.D.2d 933, 381 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11623

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 933 (Belle v. Chromalloy American Corp.) 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

Belle v. Chromalloy American Corp., 51 A.D.2d 933, 381 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, on July 30, 1975, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to respondents. As conceded by appellant in his brief, Special Term had the statutory authorization and discretion to hold the motion in abeyance pending a reference to a Special Referee to whom the court referred certain questions, including whether one of the defendants was served in this defamation action. Appellant takes the position that considering all the information available to the court in the motion papers, the reference was an abuse of discretion. We do not agree. The facts are sharply controverted. The reference should be of valuable aid to the court to properly decide the matter. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, on July 30, 1975, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to respondents. As conceded by appellant in his brief, Special Term had the statutory authorization and discretion to hold the motion in abeyance pending a reference to a Special Referee to whom the court referred certain questions, including whether one of the defendants was served in this defamation action. Appellant takes the position that considering all the information available to the court in the motion papers, the reference was an abuse of discretion. We do not agree. The facts are sharply controverted. The reference should be of valuable aid to the court to properly decide the matter. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 933, 381 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belle-v-chromalloy-american-corp-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack