Citibank N. A. v. Nagrotsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank N. A. v. Nagrotsky

239 A.D.2d 456, 658 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344

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

DecidedMay 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 456 (Citibank N. A. v. Nagrotsky) 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

Citibank N. A. v. Nagrotsky, 239 A.D.2d 456, 658 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose on a mortgage, the defendant Irene Nagrotsky appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated March 8, 1996, as granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) to discontinue the action without prejudice.

[457]*457Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As there was no showing of prejudice to the appellant, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for a voluntary discontinuance of the action (see, CPLR 3217 [b]; Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 383; Great W. Bank v Terio, 200 AD2d 608, 609). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose on a mortgage, the defendant Irene Nagrotsky appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated March 8, 1996, as granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) to discontinue the action without prejudice.

[457]*457Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As there was no showing of prejudice to the appellant, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for a voluntary discontinuance of the action (see, CPLR 3217 [b]; Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 383; Great W. Bank v Terio, 200 AD2d 608, 609). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 456, 658 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-n-a-v-nagrotsky-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack