Foster v. Marinello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foster v. Marinello

67 A.D.2d 718, 412 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10343

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 718 (Foster v. Marinello) 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

Foster v. Marinello, 67 A.D.2d 718, 412 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for reformation of a lease and for money damages, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered August 23, 1978, which denied her motion for a temporary injunction and to consolidate the instant action with a summary proceeding and (2) an order of the same court, entered November 6, 1978, which denied her motion to renew the afore-mentioned motion. Orders affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. The denial of the motion for a temporary injunction and for consolidation was an exercise of [719]*719discretion with which we are not disposed to interfere. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for reformation of a lease and for money damages, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered August 23, 1978, which denied her motion for a temporary injunction and to consolidate the instant action with a summary proceeding and (2) an order of the same court, entered November 6, 1978, which denied her motion to renew the afore-mentioned motion. Orders affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. The denial of the motion for a temporary injunction and for consolidation was an exercise of [719]*719discretion with which we are not disposed to interfere. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 718, 412 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-marinello-nyappdiv-1979.