Buico v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buico v. Brown

250 A.D.2d 563, 671 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4952

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

DecidedMay 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 563 (Buico v. Brown) 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

Buico v. Brown, 250 A.D.2d 563, 671 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In four related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendants Richard S. Staplekamp and Airborne Freight Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), entered April 11, 1997, which, inter alia, denied their cross motion to restore the actions to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The restoration of the actions to the trial calendar was barred by a stipulation of settlement which had been entered into by the parties to the action commenced in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, under Index Number 4328/91 entitled Buico v Brown (see, General Obligations Law § 15-108 [b], [c]). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In four related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendants Richard S. Staplekamp and Airborne Freight Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), entered April 11, 1997, which, inter alia, denied their cross motion to restore the actions to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The restoration of the actions to the trial calendar was barred by a stipulation of settlement which had been entered into by the parties to the action commenced in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, under Index Number 4328/91 entitled Buico v Brown (see, General Obligations Law § 15-108 [b], [c]). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 563, 671 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buico-v-brown-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack