City of Niagara Falls v. Rudolph
99 A.D.2d 676, 471 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16944
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in City of Niagara Falls v. Rudolph. Read the opinion of the Court — 97 A.D.2d 971 →
Opinion
Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Under all of the circumstances we cannot say that it was an abuse of discretion to stay the execution of summary judgment granted to defendant in its third counterclaim pending a determination of plaintiff’s action against defendant (see Marine Midland Bank v Stukey, 55 NY2d 633). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Ostrowski, J. —partial summary judgment.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
City of Niagara Falls v. Rudolph, 99 A.D.2d 676, 471 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).
99 A.D.2d 676 (City of Niagara Falls v. Rudolph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Marine Midland Bank v. Stukey
430 N.E.2d 1318 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)