Mahunik v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mahunik v. Harris

236 A.D.2d 885, 653 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1900

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 885 (Mahunik v. Harris) 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

Mahunik v. Harris, 236 A.D.2d 885, 653 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendants contend that the record of the proceedings at the Village Court of the Village of Port Byron filed with County Court is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review (see, UJCA 1704 [a]). Defendants, "by failing to resolve any issue of the sufficiency of the record before Justice Court (see, UJCA 1704 [a]), waived any alleged defects (see, Moyle v Bracci, 119 Misc 2d 185, 187)” (Matter of Lightcap v McGroggan, 160 AD2d 1188, 1189). We agree with County Court that nothing in the record suggests "that substantial justice has not been done between the parties” (UJCA 1807; see, Apfel v D. A. Bennett, Inc., 109 AD2d 1039, 1040; Blair v Five Points Shopping Plaza, 51 AD2d 167, 168). (Appeal from Order of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.— Small Claims.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendants contend that the record of the proceedings at the Village Court of the Village of Port Byron filed with County Court is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review (see, UJCA 1704 [a]). Defendants, "by failing to resolve any issue of the sufficiency of the record before Justice Court (see, UJCA 1704 [a]), waived any alleged defects (see, Moyle v Bracci, 119 Misc 2d 185, 187)” (Matter of Lightcap v McGroggan, 160 AD2d 1188, 1189). We agree with County Court that nothing in the record suggests "that substantial justice has not been done between the parties” (UJCA 1807; see, Apfel v D. A. Bennett, Inc., 109 AD2d 1039, 1040; Blair v Five Points Shopping Plaza, 51 AD2d 167, 168). (Appeal from Order of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.— Small Claims.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 885, 653 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahunik-v-harris-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack