Handras v. Chernoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Handras v. Chernoff

53 A.D.2d 602, 384 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13267

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

DecidedJune 1, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 602 (Handras v. Chernoff) 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

Handras v. Chernoff, 53 A.D.2d 602, 384 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 30, 1975, which denied his motion to (a) vacate a stipulation of settlement and (b) restore the action to the calendar and (2) as limited by his brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated October 9, 1975, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order dated June 30, 1975 dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order made upon reargument. Order dated October 9, 1975 affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. In our view, under all of the circumstances herein, the Trial Term did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 30, 1975, which denied his motion to (a) vacate a stipulation of settlement and (b) restore the action to the calendar and (2) as limited by his brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated October 9, 1975, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order dated June 30, 1975 dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order made upon reargument. Order dated October 9, 1975 affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. In our view, under all of the circumstances herein, the Trial Term did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 602, 384 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handras-v-chernoff-nyappdiv-1976.