Estate of Milstein v. Milstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estate of Milstein v. Milstein

298 A.D.2d 200, 748 N.Y.S.2d 53, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9570

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 200 (Estate of Milstein v. Milstein) 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

Estate of Milstein v. Milstein, 298 A.D.2d 200, 748 N.Y.S.2d 53, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 12, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion to renew their opposition to plaintiffs’ previously granted motion for appointment of a neutral referee to conduct a sealed-bid auction of the partnership property, but upon renewal adhered to the court’s prior determination, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 11, 2001, which directed that the partnership property be sold at a sealed-bid auction, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order entered June 12, 2002.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the June 12, 2002 order is appealable (see e.g. Freitas v New York City Tr. Auth., 297 [201]*201AD2d 270). The determination adhered to in the June 12, 2002 order, namely, to direct a sealed-bid auction of the subject partnership property, however, was, under the circumstances, a proper exercise of the court’s considerable discretion in overseeing the dissolution of the parties’ partnership (see Zari v Zari, 155 AD2d 452). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 12, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion to renew their opposition to plaintiffs’ previously granted motion for appointment of a neutral referee to conduct a sealed-bid auction of the partnership property, but upon renewal adhered to the court’s prior determination, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 11, 2001, which directed that the partnership property be sold at a sealed-bid auction, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order entered June 12, 2002.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the June 12, 2002 order is appealable (see e.g. Freitas v New York City Tr. Auth., 297 [201]*201AD2d 270). The determination adhered to in the June 12, 2002 order, namely, to direct a sealed-bid auction of the subject partnership property, however, was, under the circumstances, a proper exercise of the court’s considerable discretion in overseeing the dissolution of the parties’ partnership (see Zari v Zari, 155 AD2d 452). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 200, 748 N.Y.S.2d 53, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-milstein-v-milstein-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack