Greenstar Enterprises, Inc. v. DiSalvo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenstar Enterprises, Inc. v. DiSalvo

41 A.D.3d 432, 835 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedJune 5, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 432 (Greenstar Enterprises, Inc. v. DiSalvo) 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

Greenstar Enterprises, Inc. v. DiSalvo, 41 A.D.3d 432, 835 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated June 30, 2006, as denied his motion, in effect, to vacate a judgment entered May 8, 2006.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant’s claim that the court deprived him of due process under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution by failing to set forth its reasoning for denying his motion is without merit (see CFLR 2219 [a]). The defendant failed to demonstrate that the judgment should be disturbed (see CFLR 5016 [b]). Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Skelos, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated June 30, 2006, as denied his motion, in effect, to vacate a judgment entered May 8, 2006.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant’s claim that the court deprived him of due process under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution by failing to set forth its reasoning for denying his motion is without merit (see CFLR 2219 [a]). The defendant failed to demonstrate that the judgment should be disturbed (see CFLR 5016 [b]). Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Skelos, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 432, 835 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenstar-enterprises-inc-v-disalvo-nyappdiv-2007.