Konshin v. Goilo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Konshin v. Goilo

256 A.D.2d 313, 681 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13177

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 313 (Konshin v. Goilo) 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

Konshin v. Goilo, 256 A.D.2d 313, 681 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover certain sums and to appoint a temporary receiver for the defendant corporation, the defendant Vjacheslav Goilo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated December 2, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion to enjoin him from the use or occupancy of the corporate premises to the extent of excluding him from the corporate premises.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to file a complete record on appeal in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, CPLR 5526; 22 NYCRR 670.10 [a]).

Based on the completely inadequate record submitted on the appeal, we are unable to properly review the order appealed from. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, 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 certain sums and to appoint a temporary receiver for the defendant corporation, the defendant Vjacheslav Goilo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated December 2, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion to enjoin him from the use or occupancy of the corporate premises to the extent of excluding him from the corporate premises.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to file a complete record on appeal in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, CPLR 5526; 22 NYCRR 670.10 [a]).

Based on the completely inadequate record submitted on the appeal, we are unable to properly review the order appealed from. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 313, 681 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/konshin-v-goilo-nyappdiv-1998.