Kozinn v. Braunstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kozinn v. Braunstein

108 A.D.2d 789, 485 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43116

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.D.2d 789 (Kozinn v. Braunstein) 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

Kozinn v. Braunstein, 108 A.D.2d 789, 485 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment and money damages under a lease agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated March 13,1984, which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to set down the matter for an assessment of damages sustained, and (2) denied defendant’s cross motion to direct plaintiff to accept defendant’s answer.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[790]*790Special Term correctly recognized that since the rights of the parties had already been determined in a prior judgment, all that remained was a determination of the amount of damages sustained, if any.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a declaratory judgment and money damages under a lease agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated March 13,1984, which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to set down the matter for an assessment of damages sustained, and (2) denied defendant’s cross motion to direct plaintiff to accept defendant’s answer.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[790]*790Special Term correctly recognized that since the rights of the parties had already been determined in a prior judgment, all that remained was a determination of the amount of damages sustained, if any.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 789, 485 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kozinn-v-braunstein-nyappdiv-1985.