Edwards v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edwards v. Martin

295 A.D.2d 348, 744 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5774

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

DecidedJune 3, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 348 (Edwards v. Martin) 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

Edwards v. Martin, 295 A.D.2d 348, 744 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to decide a motion and cross motion submitted on September 5, 2001, in an action entitled Edwards v Haas, Greenstein, Samson, Cohen & Gerstein, pending under Kings County Index No. 20597/93.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

In the underlying case, the subject motion and cross motion were determined by decision and order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 25, 2002. Accordingly, the proceeding is dismissed as academic. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to decide a motion and cross motion submitted on September 5, 2001, in an action entitled Edwards v Haas, Greenstein, Samson, Cohen & Gerstein, pending under Kings County Index No. 20597/93.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

In the underlying case, the subject motion and cross motion were determined by decision and order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 25, 2002. Accordingly, the proceeding is dismissed as academic. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 348, 744 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-martin-nyappdiv-2002.