Lubliner v. A.E.B. Car Wash Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lubliner v. A.E.B. Car Wash Ltd.

263 A.D.2d 498, 691 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8102

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

DecidedJuly 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D.2d 498 (Lubliner v. A.E.B. Car Wash Ltd.) 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

Lubliner v. A.E.B. Car Wash Ltd., 263 A.D.2d 498, 691 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for specific performance of a shareholders’ agreement, the defendants Emil Acks and Avraham Tish appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated March 11, [499]*4991998, which granted the motion of the receiver, Michael C. Axelrod, to confirm an asset purchase agreement and a real estate contract of sale, and (2) an order of the same court, dated July 24, 1998, which granted the motion of the receiver, inter alia, to confirm the receiver’s accounting and direct the payment of fees.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the receiver’s motion to confirm a real estate contract of sale and an asset purchase agreement without first conducting a hearing (see, Union Chelsea Natl. Bank v Rumican 190 Corp., 257 AD2d 463).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for specific performance of a shareholders’ agreement, the defendants Emil Acks and Avraham Tish appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated March 11, [499]*4991998, which granted the motion of the receiver, Michael C. Axelrod, to confirm an asset purchase agreement and a real estate contract of sale, and (2) an order of the same court, dated July 24, 1998, which granted the motion of the receiver, inter alia, to confirm the receiver’s accounting and direct the payment of fees.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the receiver’s motion to confirm a real estate contract of sale and an asset purchase agreement without first conducting a hearing (see, Union Chelsea Natl. Bank v Rumican 190 Corp., 257 AD2d 463).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 498, 691 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lubliner-v-aeb-car-wash-ltd-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack