Bowman v. Osborne Agency, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bowman v. Osborne Agency, Inc.

245 A.D.2d 328, 666 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12782

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 328 (Bowman v. Osborne Agency, 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

Bowman v. Osborne Agency, Inc., 245 A.D.2d 328, 666 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Utica National Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered August 22, 1996, which denied its motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated November 9, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After the court granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, the parties agreed that, upon further discovery and [329]*329the submission of additional papers, the court “may reconsider the motion”. In the absence of material issues of fact, the court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the earlier order (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The appellant’s remaining contentions lack merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Utica National Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered August 22, 1996, which denied its motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated November 9, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After the court granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, the parties agreed that, upon further discovery and [329]*329the submission of additional papers, the court “may reconsider the motion”. In the absence of material issues of fact, the court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the earlier order (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The appellant’s remaining contentions lack merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 328, 666 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-osborne-agency-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack