Lazare v. Pfizer, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lazare v. Pfizer, Inc.

257 A.D.2d 498, 682 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 422

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 498 (Lazare v. Pfizer, 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

Lazare v. Pfizer, Inc., 257 A.D.2d 498, 682 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered July 11, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiffs note of issue, upon the finding that the action had been voluntarily discontinued, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs action was terminated by the filing by an express stipulation of discontinuance executed by both parties (Hotel Prince George Affiliates v Grimbilas, 241 AD2d 302, lv dismissed 91 NY2d 887; cf., Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51) and the scheduling of court conferences could not revive the previously terminated action (see, Stellato v Stellato, 230 AD2d 842, lv dismissed 89 NY2d 982; Matter of Creamer, 37 AD2d 33, 36). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, we do not find the stipulation to be conditioned upon plaintiff amending his complaint in Federal court. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered July 11, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiffs note of issue, upon the finding that the action had been voluntarily discontinued, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs action was terminated by the filing by an express stipulation of discontinuance executed by both parties (Hotel Prince George Affiliates v Grimbilas, 241 AD2d 302, lv dismissed 91 NY2d 887; cf., Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51) and the scheduling of court conferences could not revive the previously terminated action (see, Stellato v Stellato, 230 AD2d 842, lv dismissed 89 NY2d 982; Matter of Creamer, 37 AD2d 33, 36). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, we do not find the stipulation to be conditioned upon plaintiff amending his complaint in Federal court. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 498, 682 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lazare-v-pfizer-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack