Coverdale v. Zucker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coverdale v. Zucker

302 A.D.2d 348, 753 N.Y.S.2d 892

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 348 (Coverdale v. Zucker) 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

Coverdale v. Zucker, 302 A.D.2d 348, 753 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to the possession of certain real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), entered October 1, 2001, which denied her motion, among other things, to permanently enjoin the plaintiff from erecting certain signs at the entrance to a driveway on the property.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and the order entered October 1, 2001, is vacated.

Since the order appealed from was issued after the plaintiff’s death, and there has not been any substitution of a personal [349]*349representative of his estate, it was a nullity and must be vacated. The purported appeal from the order must be dismissed (see Bluestein v City of New York, 280 AD2d 506; Halperin v Waldbaum’s Supermarket, 236 AD2d 514, 515; Ludlam Stead v Rezza, 118 AD2d 628). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to the possession of certain real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), entered October 1, 2001, which denied her motion, among other things, to permanently enjoin the plaintiff from erecting certain signs at the entrance to a driveway on the property.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and the order entered October 1, 2001, is vacated.

Since the order appealed from was issued after the plaintiff’s death, and there has not been any substitution of a personal [349]*349representative of his estate, it was a nullity and must be vacated. The purported appeal from the order must be dismissed (see Bluestein v City of New York, 280 AD2d 506; Halperin v Waldbaum’s Supermarket, 236 AD2d 514, 515; Ludlam Stead v Rezza, 118 AD2d 628). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 348, 753 N.Y.S.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coverdale-v-zucker-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack