Downey v. Nigro-Kuester Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Downey v. Nigro-Kuester Associates, Inc.

50 A.D.2d 732, 375 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11505

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 732 (Downey v. Nigro-Kuester Associates, Inc.) 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

Downey v. Nigro-Kuester Associates, Inc., 50 A.D.2d 732, 375 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated April 3, 1975, which denied defendants’ motion to reargue that portion of an order entered January 15, 1975 requiring defendant Daniel F. Nigro to hold intact pending determination of this litigation all funds held by him as trustee of designated pension and profit-sharing plans, unanimously dismissed. Respondents shall recover of appellants $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The motion by defendants to reargue is not only denominated as such, but is in fact solely one to reargue and the denial of such application is not appealable (CPLR 5701; 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 5701.23). However, if we reached the merits of the instant appeal, we would affirm. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Tilzer and Lynch, JJ.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated April 3, 1975, which denied defendants’ motion to reargue that portion of an order entered January 15, 1975 requiring defendant Daniel F. Nigro to hold intact pending determination of this litigation all funds held by him as trustee of designated pension and profit-sharing plans, unanimously dismissed. Respondents shall recover of appellants $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The motion by defendants to reargue is not only denominated as such, but is in fact solely one to reargue and the denial of such application is not appealable (CPLR 5701; 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 5701.23). However, if we reached the merits of the instant appeal, we would affirm. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Tilzer and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 732, 375 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downey-v-nigro-kuester-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1975.