In re the Dissolution of Champagne-Knight Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Dissolution of Champagne-Knight Construction Co.

98 A.D.2d 972, 470 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21305

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 98 A.D.2d 972 (In re the Dissolution of Champagne-Knight Construction 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

In re the Dissolution of Champagne-Knight Construction Co., 98 A.D.2d 972, 470 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In affirming, we note that Special Term’s order directing payment by petitioner to respondent of $287.34 is premised upon petitioner’s assertion in his moving papers that the referee’s fee was $2,600. The order, however, directs payment to the referee of $2,400 and if that is the correct amount, respondent is entitled to payment of an additional $100 representing one half of the difference. This issue has not been addressed on appeal but in the interest of justice respondent is authorized, if so advised, to move at Special Term to resettle the order for the limited purpose of correcting the mathematical computation (see CPLR 2221). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Bayger, J. — dissolution of corporation.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In affirming, we note that Special Term’s order directing payment by petitioner to respondent of $287.34 is premised upon petitioner’s assertion in his moving papers that the referee’s fee was $2,600. The order, however, directs payment to the referee of $2,400 and if that is the correct amount, respondent is entitled to payment of an additional $100 representing one half of the difference. This issue has not been addressed on appeal but in the interest of justice respondent is authorized, if so advised, to move at Special Term to resettle the order for the limited purpose of correcting the mathematical computation (see CPLR 2221). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Bayger, J. — dissolution of corporation.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 972, 470 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-dissolution-of-champagne-knight-construction-co-nyappdiv-1983.