Cooper v. Stoll

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cooper v. Stoll

48 A.D.2d 917, 372 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10193

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

DecidedJune 30, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 917 (Cooper v. Stoll) 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

Cooper v. Stoll, 48 A.D.2d 917, 372 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 19, 1975, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The appeal also brings up for review an order of the same court, entered March 5, 1975, which reiterated the relief granted in the order entered February 19, 1975 and appointed a referee to compute. Defendant Meltzer has withdrawn his appeal (see letter dated June 16, 1975). Orders reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant Arthur L. Stoll, and motion for summary judgment denied (Buoninfante v Hoffman, 48 AD2d 678). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur; Latham, J., concurs on the constraint of Buoninfante v Hoffman (48 AD2d 678); Bernard Wesson, Inc. v Cullen (47 AD2d 718) and Frankel v Brinkman(48 AD2d 773).

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 19, 1975, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The appeal also brings up for review an order of the same court, entered March 5, 1975, which reiterated the relief granted in the order entered February 19, 1975 and appointed a referee to compute. Defendant Meltzer has withdrawn his appeal (see letter dated June 16, 1975). Orders reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant Arthur L. Stoll, and motion for summary judgment denied (Buoninfante v Hoffman, 48 AD2d 678). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur; Latham, J., concurs on the constraint of Buoninfante v Hoffman (48 AD2d 678); Bernard Wesson, Inc. v Cullen (47 AD2d 718) and Frankel v Brinkman(48 AD2d 773).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 917, 372 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-stoll-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack