Djeddah v. Djeddah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Djeddah v. Djeddah

128 A.D.3d 604, 8 N.Y.S.3d 573

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

DecidedMay 26, 2015

Docket350094/00 15236A 15236

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.3d 604 (Djeddah v. Djeddah) 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

Djeddah v. Djeddah, 128 A.D.3d 604, 8 N.Y.S.3d 573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered March 25, 2013 and April 24, 2013, upon consent, which, inter alia, directed Chicago Title Insurance Company to remit the sum of $275,000 from the proceeds of the sale of the parties’ Scarsdale property to intervenorplaintiff, directed the receiver to release $221,851.03 to nonparty appellant in full satisfaction of any claims it has against the receiver and in full satisfaction of its charging lien, and denied appellant’s cross motion to direct the receiver to release $443,880.58, unanimously dismissed, with costs.

Since the orders were entered upon appellant’s consent, appellant is not aggrieved by them. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Saxe and Clark, JJ.

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

Appeal from orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered March 25, 2013 and April 24, 2013, upon consent, which, inter alia, directed Chicago Title Insurance Company to remit the sum of $275,000 from the proceeds of the sale of the parties’ Scarsdale property to intervenorplaintiff, directed the receiver to release $221,851.03 to nonparty appellant in full satisfaction of any claims it has against the receiver and in full satisfaction of its charging lien, and denied appellant’s cross motion to direct the receiver to release $443,880.58, unanimously dismissed, with costs.

Since the orders were entered upon appellant’s consent, appellant is not aggrieved by them. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Saxe and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 604, 8 N.Y.S.3d 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/djeddah-v-djeddah-nyappdiv-2015.