Gorbatov v. Gardens 75th Street Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gorbatov v. Gardens 75th Street Owners Corp.

283 A.D.2d 551, 724 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222

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

DecidedMay 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 551 (Gorbatov v. Gardens 75th Street Owners 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

Gorbatov v. Gardens 75th Street Owners Corp., 283 A.D.2d 551, 724 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to determine the credit, if any, due the plaintiffs for maintenance payments, the plaintiff Difa Gorbatov appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated April 12, 2000, as, upon granting the defendants’ motion to confirm the report of a Judicial Hearing Officer recommending that the complaint be dismissed, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the plaintiff Difa Gorbatov to the defendants.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the only two remaining causes of action in the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Difa Gorbatov based upon her refusal to proceed on the scheduled trial date (see, Ortolani v Town of Hempstead, 256 AD2d 451; Brown v Data Communications, 236 AD2d 499). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to determine the credit, if any, due the plaintiffs for maintenance payments, the plaintiff Difa Gorbatov appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated April 12, 2000, as, upon granting the defendants’ motion to confirm the report of a Judicial Hearing Officer recommending that the complaint be dismissed, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the plaintiff Difa Gorbatov to the defendants.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the only two remaining causes of action in the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Difa Gorbatov based upon her refusal to proceed on the scheduled trial date (see, Ortolani v Town of Hempstead, 256 AD2d 451; Brown v Data Communications, 236 AD2d 499). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 551, 724 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorbatov-v-gardens-75th-street-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack