Furman v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Furman v. Levine

92 A.D.2d 538, 459 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16757

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.2d 538 (Furman v. Levine) 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

Furman v. Levine, 92 A.D.2d 538, 459 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, defendant Levine appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Wood, J.), dated February 6, 1981, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, with prejudice, and granted that branch of plaintiffs’ cross motion which sought to vacate an order of preclusion entered upon their default. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Barasch v Micucci (49 NY2d 594) is inapplicable here since defendant Levine’s motion for an order of preclusion was predicated, in part, upon plaintiffs’ noncompliance with an order which had been vacated prior to said defendant’s motion. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, defendant Levine appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Wood, J.), dated February 6, 1981, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, with prejudice, and granted that branch of plaintiffs’ cross motion which sought to vacate an order of preclusion entered upon their default. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Barasch v Micucci (49 NY2d 594) is inapplicable here since defendant Levine’s motion for an order of preclusion was predicated, in part, upon plaintiffs’ noncompliance with an order which had been vacated prior to said defendant’s motion. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 538, 459 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furman-v-levine-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack