Hahn/Flanigan, Inc. v. Rahman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hahn/Flanigan, Inc. v. Rahman

211 A.D.2d 758, 621 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 683

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 758 (Hahn/Flanigan, Inc. v. Rahman) 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

Hahn/Flanigan, Inc. v. Rahman, 211 A.D.2d 758, 621 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the plaintiff (1) from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 13, 1992, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated January 25, 1993.

Ordered that the judgment dated October 13, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from for reasons stated by Justice Hillery at the Supreme Court in her decision and order dated September 11, 1992; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated January 25, 1993, as denied reargument is dismissed, as no appeal lies therefrom; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 25, 1993, is otherwise [759]*759affirmed insofar as reviewed for reasons stated by Justice Hillery at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs are awarded one bill of costs. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the plaintiff (1) from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 13, 1992, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated January 25, 1993.

Ordered that the judgment dated October 13, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from for reasons stated by Justice Hillery at the Supreme Court in her decision and order dated September 11, 1992; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated January 25, 1993, as denied reargument is dismissed, as no appeal lies therefrom; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 25, 1993, is otherwise [759]*759affirmed insofar as reviewed for reasons stated by Justice Hillery at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs are awarded one bill of costs. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 758, 621 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hahnflanigan-inc-v-rahman-nyappdiv-1995.