ICD Group, Inc. v. Israel Foreign Trade Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ICD Group, Inc. v. Israel Foreign Trade Co.

247 A.D.2d 244, 668 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1055

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 244 (ICD Group, Inc. v. Israel Foreign Trade Co.) 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

ICD Group, Inc. v. Israel Foreign Trade Co., 247 A.D.2d 244, 668 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered October 3, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion to reinstate a judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 1, 1994, vacated on a prior appeal for further proceedings, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The assessment court’s reinstatement of its judgment did not vacate, modify or reverse the prior order of this Court (221 AD2d 152, 153), which “remand[ed] for the assessment court’s further consideration and a written decision on the issues raised in [defendants’] cross appeal”, i.e., because of the possibility that two items of damages defendants had asserted, which were rejected for unclear reasons, might warrant an increase in the award on their counterclaim. Nothing in our [245]*245prior order suggested that the remand was for any other purpose. When defendants subsequently withdrew their claims based on these items, the proceedings contemplated by the remand were rendered moot, justifying the assessment court’s summary reinstatement of the judgment.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered October 3, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion to reinstate a judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 1, 1994, vacated on a prior appeal for further proceedings, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The assessment court’s reinstatement of its judgment did not vacate, modify or reverse the prior order of this Court (221 AD2d 152, 153), which “remand[ed] for the assessment court’s further consideration and a written decision on the issues raised in [defendants’] cross appeal”, i.e., because of the possibility that two items of damages defendants had asserted, which were rejected for unclear reasons, might warrant an increase in the award on their counterclaim. Nothing in our [245]*245prior order suggested that the remand was for any other purpose. When defendants subsequently withdrew their claims based on these items, the proceedings contemplated by the remand were rendered moot, justifying the assessment court’s summary reinstatement of the judgment.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 244, 668 N.Y.S.2d 451, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/icd-group-inc-v-israel-foreign-trade-co-nyappdiv-1998.