Lancaster v. Colonial Motor Freight Line, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lancaster v. Colonial Motor Freight Line, Inc.

197 A.D.2d 351, 603 N.Y.S.2d 735

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 197 A.D.2d 351 (Lancaster v. Colonial Motor Freight Line, Inc.) 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

Lancaster v. Colonial Motor Freight Line, Inc., 197 A.D.2d 351, 603 N.Y.S.2d 735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram R. Katz, J.), entered June 8, 1992, which denied plaintiff’s motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) and (3) relieving her from an order of this Court dismissing the action as against defendants-respondents for lack of jurisdiction (177 AD2d 152), and denied defendants’ [352]*352cross motion for costs and sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The purported new evidence adduced by plaintiff in support of jurisdiction was reviewed by this Court on her motion to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals this Court’s prior order, and found wanting. The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants costs and sanctions. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram R. Katz, J.), entered June 8, 1992, which denied plaintiff’s motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) and (3) relieving her from an order of this Court dismissing the action as against defendants-respondents for lack of jurisdiction (177 AD2d 152), and denied defendants’ [352]*352cross motion for costs and sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The purported new evidence adduced by plaintiff in support of jurisdiction was reviewed by this Court on her motion to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals this Court’s prior order, and found wanting. The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants costs and sanctions. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 351, 603 N.Y.S.2d 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lancaster-v-colonial-motor-freight-line-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack