Driscoll v. Delarosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Driscoll v. Delarosa

16 A.D.3d 130, 789 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2180

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 130 (Driscoll v. Delarosa) 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

Driscoll v. Delarosa, 16 A.D.3d 130, 789 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered February 24, 2004, which denied as moot plaintiff’s attorney’s motion, by order to show cause, to be relieved as counsel, unanimously dismissed, with costs in favor of defendant payable by plaintiff.

Plaintiffs consent to change attorneys rendered moot his attorney’s motion to be relieved, and renders plaintiff a nonaggrieved party for purposes of an appeal (CPLR 5511). Insofar as plaintiff purports to appeal from an order denying his motion for a downward modification of child support, it does not appear that his motion therefor was ever decided or that any such order has been entered. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered February 24, 2004, which denied as moot plaintiff’s attorney’s motion, by order to show cause, to be relieved as counsel, unanimously dismissed, with costs in favor of defendant payable by plaintiff.

Plaintiffs consent to change attorneys rendered moot his attorney’s motion to be relieved, and renders plaintiff a nonaggrieved party for purposes of an appeal (CPLR 5511). Insofar as plaintiff purports to appeal from an order denying his motion for a downward modification of child support, it does not appear that his motion therefor was ever decided or that any such order has been entered. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 130, 789 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driscoll-v-delarosa-nyappdiv-2005.