Fishman v. Fishman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fishman v. Fishman

168 A.D.2d 418

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 418 (Fishman v. Fishman) 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

Fishman v. Fishman, 168 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to compel the distribution of an escrow account, and to recover damages for fraud, the defendant Seymour Brown appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated April 25, 1989, which denied his motion to vacate his default in responding to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated September 1, 1989, as, upon renewal, adhered to the prior determination.

[419]*419Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 25, 1989, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated September 1, 1989, made upon renewal; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 1, 1989, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of this case we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the default (see, e.g., Burks v Weiss, 137 AD2d 646; Hargett v Health & Hosp. Corp., 88 AD2d 633). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to compel the distribution of an escrow account, and to recover damages for fraud, the defendant Seymour Brown appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated April 25, 1989, which denied his motion to vacate his default in responding to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated September 1, 1989, as, upon renewal, adhered to the prior determination.

[419]*419Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 25, 1989, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated September 1, 1989, made upon renewal; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 1, 1989, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of this case we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the default (see, e.g., Burks v Weiss, 137 AD2d 646; Hargett v Health & Hosp. Corp., 88 AD2d 633). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fishman-v-fishman-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack