Mager v. Seril

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mager v. Seril

204 A.D.2d 205, 612 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581

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

DecidedMay 24, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 205 (Mager v. Seril) 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

Mager v. Seril, 204 A.D.2d 205, 612 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered April 23, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the counterclaim, and directed a hearing on the issue of damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly determined that the Referee’s findings, confirmed by another Justice, barred plaintiffs claims alleging failure to make repairs and harassment, and entitled defendants to judgment on their counterclaims.

The claims for either harassment, abuse of process or malicious prosecution based upon defendants’ prosecution of a New Jersey action in which they obtained a restraint against distribution of the estate of plaintiffs father, who had guaranteed her lease, were not viable in view of the affirmance by the New Jersey Appellate Division of the initial injunction grounded upon a finding of a likelihood of success on the merits.

We have considered plaintiffs other contentions, several of which were improperly raised for the first time on appeal (Murray v City of New York, 195 AD2d 379, 381), and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered April 23, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the counterclaim, and directed a hearing on the issue of damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly determined that the Referee’s findings, confirmed by another Justice, barred plaintiffs claims alleging failure to make repairs and harassment, and entitled defendants to judgment on their counterclaims.

The claims for either harassment, abuse of process or malicious prosecution based upon defendants’ prosecution of a New Jersey action in which they obtained a restraint against distribution of the estate of plaintiffs father, who had guaranteed her lease, were not viable in view of the affirmance by the New Jersey Appellate Division of the initial injunction grounded upon a finding of a likelihood of success on the merits.

We have considered plaintiffs other contentions, several of which were improperly raised for the first time on appeal (Murray v City of New York, 195 AD2d 379, 381), and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 205, 612 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mager-v-seril-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack