Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District v. Vecchio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District v. Vecchio

164 A.D.2d 901, 559 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10622

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

DecidedAugust 20, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 A.D.2d 901 (Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District v. Vecchio) 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

Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District v. Vecchio, 164 A.D.2d 901, 559 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In related actions for moneys had and received, the defendants appeal, (1) in action No. 4, from an [902]*902order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), dated February 20, 1990, which, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, (2) in action No. 5, from an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, also dated February 20, 1990, which, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, (3) in Action No. 9, from an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, also dated February 20, 1990, which, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and, (4) in action No. 11, from an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, also dated February 20, 1990, which, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order and judgment in action No. 4 is reversed, on the law, the plaintiff’s cross motion is denied, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment in action No. 5 is reversed, on the law, the plaintiffs’ cross motion is denied, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment in action No. 9 is reversed, on the law, the plaintiffs’ cross motion is denied, and the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment in action No. 11 is reversed, on the law, the plaintiffs’ cross motion is denied, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

Our determination in Board of Educ. v Rettaliata (164 AD2d 900 [decided herewith]), is dispositive of the instant appeals. Brown, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In related actions for moneys had and received, the defendants appeal, (1) in action No. 4, from an [902]*902order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), dated February 20, 1990, which, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, (2) in action No. 5, from an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, also dated February 20, 1990, which, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, (3) in Action No. 9, from an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, also dated February 20, 1990, which, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and, (4) in action No. 11, from an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, also dated February 20, 1990, which, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.