Lustbader v. Lupiano

226 A.D. 675
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1929·No. Appeal No. 1·Published

Opinion

— Order denying motion for discontinuance of action as against defendant John Lupiano, [676]*676for judgment of foreclosure, and for appointment of a referee to compute affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The methods of counsel for appellant in this ease were not proper. Respondents’ efforts to pay appellant the full amount due should have been met in a spirit of fairness. Appellant should not, under the circumstances, have attempted to mulct respondents in further costs. The law favors the amicable settlement of disputes. If the parties were not able to agree upon the amount of costs due, that matter should have been submitted to the court for determination. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Seeger, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur.

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

Lustbader v. Lupiano, 226 A.D. 675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

226 A.D. 675 (Lustbader v. Lupiano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.