Bromberg v. Morton V. Ellish, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bromberg v. Morton V. Ellish, Inc.

107 A.D.2d 778, 485 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42703

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 107 A.D.2d 778 (Bromberg v. Morton V. Ellish, 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

Bromberg v. Morton V. Ellish, Inc., 107 A.D.2d 778, 485 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to declare that plaintiffs have littoral rights to a certain lake, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), entered April 19, 1983, which, after a hearing, denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 6514 (subd [c]) for an award of costs and expenses.

Order affirmed, with costs.

[779]*779Upon a review of the record, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion (CPLR 6514, subd [c]) for costs and expenses occasioned by the filing by plaintiffs, and subsequent cancellation by the court, of a notice of pendency. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to declare that plaintiffs have littoral rights to a certain lake, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), entered April 19, 1983, which, after a hearing, denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 6514 (subd [c]) for an award of costs and expenses.

Order affirmed, with costs.

[779]*779Upon a review of the record, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion (CPLR 6514, subd [c]) for costs and expenses occasioned by the filing by plaintiffs, and subsequent cancellation by the court, of a notice of pendency. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 778, 485 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bromberg-v-morton-v-ellish-inc-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack