Lewis v. Forest Hills Gardens Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. Forest Hills Gardens Corp.

253 A.D.2d 541, 676 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221

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

DecidedAugust 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 541 (Lewis v. Forest Hills Gardens Corp.) 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

Lewis v. Forest Hills Gardens Corp., 253 A.D.2d 541, 676 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for an allegedly excessive penalty imposed on the plaintiff by the respondent in connection with the illegal parking of his motor vehicle, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated June 20, 1997, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 902 for a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 902 for a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action (see, Karlin v IVF Am., 239 AD2d 562). The evidence in the record indicates that the plaintiff is not a suitable representative of the proposed class (see, CPLR 901 [a] [4]). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for an allegedly excessive penalty imposed on the plaintiff by the respondent in connection with the illegal parking of his motor vehicle, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated June 20, 1997, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 902 for a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 902 for a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action (see, Karlin v IVF Am., 239 AD2d 562). The evidence in the record indicates that the plaintiff is not a suitable representative of the proposed class (see, CPLR 901 [a] [4]). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 541, 676 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-forest-hills-gardens-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack