Lieb v. Lieb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lieb v. Lieb

187 A.D.2d 492, 590 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12774

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 492 (Lieb v. Lieb) 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

Lieb v. Lieb, 187 A.D.2d 492, 590 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Segal, J.), dated July 9, 1990, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated October 3, 1990, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 9, 1990, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 3, 1990, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 3, 1990, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, for the reasons stated by Justice Segal at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs. Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Segal, J.), dated July 9, 1990, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated October 3, 1990, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 9, 1990, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 3, 1990, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 3, 1990, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, for the reasons stated by Justice Segal at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs. Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 492, 590 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieb-v-lieb-nyappdiv-1992.