Madison-68 Corp. v. Malpass

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madison-68 Corp. v. Malpass

55 A.D.3d 347, 864 N.Y.S.2d 421

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 347 (Madison-68 Corp. v. Malpass) 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

Madison-68 Corp. v. Malpass, 55 A.D.3d 347, 864 N.Y.S.2d 421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered March 17, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from in this action for unpaid rent, denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the trial and restore the case to the trial calendar for assignment to a Supreme Court Justice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that plaintiff consented to the trial by the Judicial Hearing Officer. Plaintiff participated during the course of the entire trial, was fully aware of the issues being adjudicated, and did not voice an objection until after trial and after the Judicial Hearing Officer informed the parties that he was going to rule substantially in defendants’ favor. Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Buckley and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered March 17, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from in this action for unpaid rent, denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the trial and restore the case to the trial calendar for assignment to a Supreme Court Justice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that plaintiff consented to the trial by the Judicial Hearing Officer. Plaintiff participated during the course of the entire trial, was fully aware of the issues being adjudicated, and did not voice an objection until after trial and after the Judicial Hearing Officer informed the parties that he was going to rule substantially in defendants’ favor. Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Buckley and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 347, 864 N.Y.S.2d 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madison-68-corp-v-malpass-nyappdiv-2008.