Karapetyan v. Underwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karapetyan v. Underwood

287 A.D.2d 547, 731 N.Y.S.2d 667, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9555

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 547 (Karapetyan v. Underwood) 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

Karapetyan v. Underwood, 287 A.D.2d 547, 731 N.Y.S.2d 667, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9555 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated November 21, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance dated October 13, 1998.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance. The stipulation of discontinuance was properly signed by the attorneys of record for all the parties, and was clear and unambiguous as to the intent of the parties to discontinue the entire action and all cross claims with prejudice (see, CPLR 3217 [a] [2]; [c]; Royal York Realty v Ancona, 280 AD2d 593).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated November 21, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance dated October 13, 1998.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance. The stipulation of discontinuance was properly signed by the attorneys of record for all the parties, and was clear and unambiguous as to the intent of the parties to discontinue the entire action and all cross claims with prejudice (see, CPLR 3217 [a] [2]; [c]; Royal York Realty v Ancona, 280 AD2d 593).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 547, 731 N.Y.S.2d 667, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karapetyan-v-underwood-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack