Henderson v. Holley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henderson v. Holley

96 A.D.2d 829, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19412

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

DecidedAugust 1, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.2d 829 (Henderson v. Holley) 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

Henderson v. Holley, 96 A.D.2d 829, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover for breach of contract and conversion of personal property, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), entered April 16, 1982, which awarded plaintiffs $5,097. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements, unless defendant serves upon respondents and files with this court a further record containing the missing defendant’s exhibits A and C within 10 days after service upon appellant of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. The instant record is missing two crucial exhibits, i.e., defendant’s exhibits A and C. Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed due to the inadequate record, unless such inadequacy is promptly cured. (See 22 NYCRR 670.18.) Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover for breach of contract and conversion of personal property, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), entered April 16, 1982, which awarded plaintiffs $5,097. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements, unless defendant serves upon respondents and files with this court a further record containing the missing defendant’s exhibits A and C within 10 days after service upon appellant of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. The instant record is missing two crucial exhibits, i.e., defendant’s exhibits A and C. Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed due to the inadequate record, unless such inadequacy is promptly cured. (See 22 NYCRR 670.18.) Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 829, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-holley-nyappdiv-1983.