Ellentuck v. Stein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellentuck v. Stein

48 A.D.2d 675, 371 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9697

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

DecidedMay 13, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 48 A.D.2d 675 (Ellentuck v. Stein) 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

Ellentuck v. Stein, 48 A.D.2d 675, 371 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to declare the proposed alteration of a building a violation of a zoning resolution, plaintiffs appeal (1) from an ordef of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 27, 1974 which denied plaintiffs’ motion to punish respondents H. I. Sigman, as Borough Superintendent of the Borough of Queens, and Kimball Construction Co., Inc., for contempt of court and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated January 8, 1975, as granted leave to renew the prior motion insofar as it concerned respondent Kimball Construction Co., Inc., and, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination. In their brief, plaintiffs request that the motion to punish respondent Sigman "be marked withdrawn without prejudice.” Appeal from the order dated November 27, 1974 dismissed, without costs, insofar as it denied the motion to punish defendant Kimball. That portion of the order was superseded by the order of January 8, 1975. Order of November 27, 1974 otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order of January 8, 1975, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. No opinion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to declare the proposed alteration of a building a violation of a zoning resolution, plaintiffs appeal (1) from an ordef of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 27, 1974 which denied plaintiffs’ motion to punish respondents H. I. Sigman, as Borough Superintendent of the Borough of Queens, and Kimball Construction Co., Inc., for contempt of court and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated January 8, 1975, as granted leave to renew the prior motion insofar as it concerned respondent Kimball Construction Co., Inc., and, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination. In their brief, plaintiffs request that the motion to punish respondent Sigman "be marked withdrawn without prejudice.” Appeal from the order dated November 27, 1974 dismissed, without costs, insofar as it denied the motion to punish defendant Kimball. That portion of the order was superseded by the order of January 8, 1975. Order of November 27, 1974 otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order of January 8, 1975, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. No opinion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 675, 371 N.Y.S.2d 642, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellentuck-v-stein-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack