Cox v. Lynch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cox v. Lynch

206 A.D.2d 401, 616 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7312

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 401 (Cox v. Lynch) 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. Lynch, 206 A.D.2d 401, 616 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to partition real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated July 2, 1992, as denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated December 14,1990, and for a new trial.

[402]*402Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court should have vacated its prior judgment. The defendant did not present any of the grounds for relief from a judgment set forth in CPLR 5015, nor did she show that the judgment should be vacated in the interest of justice (cf., McMahon v City of New York, 105 AD2d 101).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to partition real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated July 2, 1992, as denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated December 14,1990, and for a new trial.

[402]*402Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court should have vacated its prior judgment. The defendant did not present any of the grounds for relief from a judgment set forth in CPLR 5015, nor did she show that the judgment should be vacated in the interest of justice (cf., McMahon v City of New York, 105 AD2d 101).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 401, 616 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-lynch-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack