Business Products Corp. of America v. Mita Copystar America, Inc.
This text of 244 A.D.2d 188 (Business Products Corp. of America v. Mita Copystar America, 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.
Opinion
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered May 9, 1996, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore this action to the calendar and for recusal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court properly exercised its calendar control authority by marking this case off the calendar, without prejudice to a formal motion to restore, and then by denying the motion, where it was made three years later (CPLR 3404). The application for recusal was without merit since plaintiff failed to show any circumstances that would even suggest that disqualification was warranted (see, Skripek v Skripek, 239 AD2d 488). We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Williams, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
244 A.D.2d 188, 665 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/business-products-corp-of-america-v-mita-copystar-america-inc-nyappdiv-1997.