Long v. Nave

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Long v. Nave

210 A.D.2d 85, 620 N.Y.S.2d 33

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 85 (Long v. Nave) 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

Long v. Nave, 210 A.D.2d 85, 620 N.Y.S.2d 33 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[86]*86—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about August 3, 1993, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for a protective order against a subpoena, sanctions against plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attorney, and an award of attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant escrow agent’s noncompliance with the court order directing release of the funds held in escrow justified plaintiffs’ institution of the action and bars whatever right defendant might otherwise have had to reimbursement of attorneys’ fees expended in defending the action (compare, Breed, Abbott & Morgan v Hulko, 139 AD2d 71, affd 74 NY2d 686). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

[86]*86—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about August 3, 1993, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for a protective order against a subpoena, sanctions against plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attorney, and an award of attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant escrow agent’s noncompliance with the court order directing release of the funds held in escrow justified plaintiffs’ institution of the action and bars whatever right defendant might otherwise have had to reimbursement of attorneys’ fees expended in defending the action (compare, Breed, Abbott & Morgan v Hulko, 139 AD2d 71, affd 74 NY2d 686). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 85, 620 N.Y.S.2d 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-nave-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack