Klepov v. Porges

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klepov v. Porges

37 A.D.3d 349, 828 N.Y.S.2d 893

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 349 (Klepov v. Porges) 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

Klepov v. Porges, 37 A.D.3d 349, 828 N.Y.S.2d 893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered December 20, 2005, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denied defendant Porges’s cross motion for similar relief, unanimously dismissed as academic, with costs in favor of plaintiff payable by defendant-appellant.

After perfecting this appeal, defendant Porges entered into a so-ordered stipulation directing that the closing on the subject property take place forthwith but no later than October 30, 2006. As a result, the matter was marked disposed of at IAS, rendering this appeal academic. Plaintiffs request for sanctions against Porges’s counsel is denied. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered December 20, 2005, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denied defendant Porges’s cross motion for similar relief, unanimously dismissed as academic, with costs in favor of plaintiff payable by defendant-appellant.

After perfecting this appeal, defendant Porges entered into a so-ordered stipulation directing that the closing on the subject property take place forthwith but no later than October 30, 2006. As a result, the matter was marked disposed of at IAS, rendering this appeal academic. Plaintiffs request for sanctions against Porges’s counsel is denied. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 349, 828 N.Y.S.2d 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klepov-v-porges-nyappdiv-2007.