Erdheim v. York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Erdheim v. York

298 A.D.2d 552, 748 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10256

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 552 (Erdheim v. York) 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

Erdheim v. York, 298 A.D.2d 552, 748 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover payment for legal services rendered based on an account stated, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated March 12, 2001, which denied his motion to strike the answer and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated September 13, 2001, as, in effect, upon granting his motion for leave to reargue, adhered to its prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 12, 2001, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated September 13, 2001, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 13, 2001, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court acted properly in dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover payment for legal services rendered based on an account stated, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated March 12, 2001, which denied his motion to strike the answer and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated September 13, 2001, as, in effect, upon granting his motion for leave to reargue, adhered to its prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 12, 2001, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated September 13, 2001, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 13, 2001, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court acted properly in dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 552, 748 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erdheim-v-york-nyappdiv-2002.