Entwistle v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Entwistle v. Brown

109 A.D.2d 865, 487 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47382

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.2d 865 (Entwistle v. Brown) 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

Entwistle v. Brown, 109 A.D.2d 865, 487 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In two actions to recover installments due under a promissory note, the consolidated appeals are by defendants Ira Brown, Sheryl P. Brown and Shir Restaurant Corp. (1) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated August 15, 1983, as upon plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in action No. 1, granted the same to the extent of awarding him partial summary judgment in the sum of $16,500 with interest, representing 15 unpaid installments, (2) from a judgment of the same court dated August 31,1983 and entered thereon in action No. 1 in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $16,500, (3) from an order of the same court, dated March 15, 1984 and made in action No. 2, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for the balance due under the note and, (4) from a judgment of the same court, dated March 19, 1984 and entered thereon, in action No. 2, in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $100,500.

Appeals from the orders dated August 15,1983 and March 15, 1984, respectively, dismissed. (See, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248.)

Judgments dated August 31, 1983 and March 19, 1984, respectively, affirmed, for reasons stated in the memorandum decisions of Bernstein, J. at Special Term.

Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

— In two actions to recover installments due under a promissory note, the consolidated appeals are by defendants Ira Brown, Sheryl P. Brown and Shir Restaurant Corp. (1) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated August 15, 1983, as upon plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in action No. 1, granted the same to the extent of awarding him partial summary judgment in the sum of $16,500 with interest, representing 15 unpaid installments, (2) from a judgment of the same court dated August 31,1983 and entered thereon in action No. 1 in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $16,500, (3) from an order of the same court, dated March 15, 1984 and made in action No. 2, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for the balance due under the note and, (4) from a judgment of the same court, dated March 19, 1984 and entered thereon, in action No. 2, in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $100,500.

Appeals from the orders dated August 15,1983 and March 15, 1984, respectively, dismissed. (See, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248.)

Judgments dated August 31, 1983 and March 19, 1984, respectively, affirmed, for reasons stated in the memorandum decisions of Bernstein, J. at Special Term.

Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 865, 487 N.Y.S.2d 722, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/entwistle-v-brown-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack