Eiseman v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eiseman v. State

133 A.D.2d 547, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50076

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.2d 547 (Eiseman v. State) 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

Eiseman v. State, 133 A.D.2d 547, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Motion to be relieved of judgment for costs denied. Memorandum: On appeal from the Court of Claims, we affirmed and granted costs against the State. Our order was reversed by the Court of Appeals and the claim against the State was dismissed (Eiseman v State of New York, 109 AD2d 46, revd 70 NY2d 175). The State now moves for an order relieving it from the judgment for costs. CPLR 5015 (a) (5) provides that the court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it where there has been a reversal of a prior judgment or order upon which it was based. Since the judgment for costs was entered in the Court of Claims, the State should address its motion to that court. Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Motion to be relieved of judgment for costs denied. Memorandum: On appeal from the Court of Claims, we affirmed and granted costs against the State. Our order was reversed by the Court of Appeals and the claim against the State was dismissed (Eiseman v State of New York, 109 AD2d 46, revd 70 NY2d 175). The State now moves for an order relieving it from the judgment for costs. CPLR 5015 (a) (5) provides that the court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it where there has been a reversal of a prior judgment or order upon which it was based. Since the judgment for costs was entered in the Court of Claims, the State should address its motion to that court. Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 547, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eiseman-v-state-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack