Garofalo Electric Co. v. Urban Electrical Supply & Equipment Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garofalo Electric Co. v. Urban Electrical Supply & Equipment Corp.

94 A.D.2d 760, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18214

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

DecidedMay 23, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.2d 760 (Garofalo Electric Co. v. Urban Electrical Supply & Equipment Corp.) 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

Garofalo Electric Co. v. Urban Electrical Supply & Equipment Corp., 94 A.D.2d 760, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated April 13, 1982, which, upon the granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213), was in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $39,889.88. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court dated July 6, 1982, as, upon granted defendant’s motion to reargue and rehear, adhered to its original determination. Appeal from the judgment dismissed. The judgment was superseded by the subsequent order. Order affirmed insofar as reviewed. No opinion. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated April 13, 1982, which, upon the granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213), was in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $39,889.88. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court dated July 6, 1982, as, upon granted defendant’s motion to reargue and rehear, adhered to its original determination. Appeal from the judgment dismissed. The judgment was superseded by the subsequent order. Order affirmed insofar as reviewed. No opinion. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 760, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garofalo-electric-co-v-urban-electrical-supply-equipment-corp-nyappdiv-1983.