Hudson Valley National Bank v. Blodnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hudson Valley National Bank v. Blodnick

234 A.D.2d 271, 651 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12716

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D.2d 271 (Hudson Valley National Bank v. Blodnick) 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

Hudson Valley National Bank v. Blodnick, 234 A.D.2d 271, 651 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of implied contract, the defendant Blodnick, Abramowitz, Newman, Schultz and Bass, P. C., and the defendants Edward Blodnick, Arnold Ambramowitz, Frederick Newman, Andrew Schultz, and John Bass appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered August 14, 1995, which denied their motion to renew their prior motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion for renewal (see, CPLR 2221; Karlin v Bridges, 172 AD2d 644; Sciascia v Nevins, 130 AD2d 649; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Friedmann, 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 implied contract, the defendant Blodnick, Abramowitz, Newman, Schultz and Bass, P. C., and the defendants Edward Blodnick, Arnold Ambramowitz, Frederick Newman, Andrew Schultz, and John Bass appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered August 14, 1995, which denied their motion to renew their prior motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion for renewal (see, CPLR 2221; Karlin v Bridges, 172 AD2d 644; Sciascia v Nevins, 130 AD2d 649; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 271, 651 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-valley-national-bank-v-blodnick-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack