Horan v. Town of Brookhaven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Horan v. Town of Brookhaven

29 A.D.2d 563, 286 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2619

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 563 (Horan v. Town of Brookhaven) 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

Horan v. Town of Brookhaven, 29 A.D.2d 563, 286 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, as amended by order of said court dated March 31, 1967, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs and without prejudice to any remedies which may remain to the parties. Where change of substance in the judgment is sought, the remedy is an appeal or motion to vacate, not a motion to amend the judgment (Herpe V. Herpe, 225 N. V. 323 ; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 63:157). However, in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, we now do what the lower court should have done (Matter of James, 23 A D 2d 529; Terry & Gibson V. Bank of N. T. & Trust Co., 242 App. Div. 699) and treat defendants’ cross motion as one to vacate that part of the original judgment which decreed that respondents build the boardwalk, and, as such, grant the motion. Beldock, P." J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, as amended by order of said court dated March 31, 1967, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs and without prejudice to any remedies which may remain to the parties. Where change of substance in the judgment is sought, the remedy is an appeal or motion to vacate, not a motion to amend the judgment (Herpe V. Herpe, 225 N. V. 323 ; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 63:157). However, in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction, we now do what the lower court should have done (Matter of James, 23 A D 2d 529; Terry & Gibson V. Bank of N. T. & Trust Co., 242 App. Div. 699) and treat defendants’ cross motion as one to vacate that part of the original judgment which decreed that respondents build the boardwalk, and, as such, grant the motion. Beldock, P." J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 563, 286 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horan-v-town-of-brookhaven-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack