Leggio v. Orlan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leggio v. Orlan

191 A.D.2d 541, 595 N.Y.S.2d 330

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 541 (Leggio v. Orlan) 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

Leggio v. Orlan, 191 A.D.2d 541, 595 N.Y.S.2d 330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), dated August 9, 1990, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. There is no evidence that the plaintiff performed any work on the property which was required of him pursuant to the terms of the bond and mortgage. Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not err in precluding the plaintiff from testifying as to statements between him and the decedent, because such testimony was inadmissible under CPLR 4519. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), dated August 9, 1990, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. There is no evidence that the plaintiff performed any work on the property which was required of him pursuant to the terms of the bond and mortgage. Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not err in precluding the plaintiff from testifying as to statements between him and the decedent, because such testimony was inadmissible under CPLR 4519. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 541, 595 N.Y.S.2d 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leggio-v-orlan-nyappdiv-1993.