Brussels Leasing Ltd. Partnership v. Henne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brussels Leasing Ltd. Partnership v. Henne

256 A.D.2d 406, 682 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13432

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 406 (Brussels Leasing Ltd. Partnership v. Henne) 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

Brussels Leasing Ltd. Partnership v. Henne, 256 A.D.2d 406, 682 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel compliance with a non-judicial subpoena duces tecum, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated December 16, 1997, as denied its application and granted the respondent’s cross application to quash the subpoena.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs to the respondent.

At the oral argument of this appeal, counsel for the respondent informed this Court that during the pendency of the appeal, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal made a final determination that no decrease in services had occurred at the appellant’s building and dismissed the respondent’s petition before that agency which had sought a rent reduction. Accordingly, the issues raised on this appeal are academic. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel compliance with a non-judicial subpoena duces tecum, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated December 16, 1997, as denied its application and granted the respondent’s cross application to quash the subpoena.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs to the respondent.

At the oral argument of this appeal, counsel for the respondent informed this Court that during the pendency of the appeal, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal made a final determination that no decrease in services had occurred at the appellant’s building and dismissed the respondent’s petition before that agency which had sought a rent reduction. Accordingly, the issues raised on this appeal are academic. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 406, 682 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brussels-leasing-ltd-partnership-v-henne-nyappdiv-1998.