Desmond v. For-Med Medical Group, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Desmond v. For-Med Medical Group, P.C.

42 A.D.3d 559, 841 N.Y.S.2d 593

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

DecidedJuly 31, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A.D.3d 559 (Desmond v. For-Med Medical Group, P.C.) 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

Desmond v. For-Med Medical Group, P.C., 42 A.D.3d 559, 841 N.Y.S.2d 593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), dated August 4, 2006, which denied bis motion, inter alia, to vacate a stipulation of settlement dated May 30, 2002.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate a stipulation of settlement dated May 30, 2002 (see Pretterhofer v Pretterhofer, 37 AD3d 446 [2007]). There is no evidence that the defendant engaged in, among other things, any fraud as to the stipulation (id.). To the contrary, the confusion and delay in this case appears to have arisen from the plaintiffs failure to have taken a clear and consistent position concerning the money at issue, and failure to provide the defendant with relevant information concerning the same. Miller, J.E, Mastro, Lifson and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), dated August 4, 2006, which denied bis motion, inter alia, to vacate a stipulation of settlement dated May 30, 2002.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate a stipulation of settlement dated May 30, 2002 (see Pretterhofer v Pretterhofer, 37 AD3d 446 [2007]). There is no evidence that the defendant engaged in, among other things, any fraud as to the stipulation (id.). To the contrary, the confusion and delay in this case appears to have arisen from the plaintiffs failure to have taken a clear and consistent position concerning the money at issue, and failure to provide the defendant with relevant information concerning the same. Miller, J.E, Mastro, Lifson and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.3d 559, 841 N.Y.S.2d 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desmond-v-for-med-medical-group-pc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack