Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/City of Niagara Falls v. Rudolph

City of Niagara Falls v. Rudolph

99 A.D.2d 676, 471 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16944
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 1984
StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 676 (City of Niagara Falls v. Rudolph) 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
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).

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

Related

Marine Midland Bank v. Stukey
430 N.E.2d 1318 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 A.D.2d 676, 471 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-niagara-falls-v-rudolph-nyappdiv-1984.