Cox v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cox v. City of Niagara Falls

289 A.D.2d 978, 734 N.Y.S.2d 802, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12660

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 978 (Cox v. City of Niagara Falls) 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

Cox v. City of Niagara Falls, 289 A.D.2d 978, 734 N.Y.S.2d 802, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment [979]*979unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment in favor of petitioner entered October 16, 1998, respondents contend that petitioner abandoned the proceeding by failing to serve respondents with a copy of the judgment with notice of entry pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. Contrary to respondents’ contention, 22 NYCRR 202.48 “speaks to the period within which a proposed order or judgment reflecting the disposition of a motion or matter must be drawn by a party” (Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 366) and does not apply to service of the judgment with notice of entry upon an opposing party. We have considered respondents’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Fahey, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

Judgment [979]*979unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment in favor of petitioner entered October 16, 1998, respondents contend that petitioner abandoned the proceeding by failing to serve respondents with a copy of the judgment with notice of entry pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. Contrary to respondents’ contention, 22 NYCRR 202.48 “speaks to the period within which a proposed order or judgment reflecting the disposition of a motion or matter must be drawn by a party” (Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 366) and does not apply to service of the judgment with notice of entry upon an opposing party. We have considered respondents’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Fahey, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 978, 734 N.Y.S.2d 802, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-city-of-niagara-falls-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack