Marine Midland Bank v. Stukey
430 N.E.2d 1318, 55 N.Y.2d 633, 446 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3221
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (75 AD2d 713). So far as the stay of execution of the judgment pending disposition of the counterclaims is concerned, under all the circumstances, we cannot say that its grant by the Appellate Division was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see Chrysler Corp. v Fedders Corp., 51 NY2d 953, 955).
Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Marine Midland Bank v. Stukey, 430 N.E.2d 1318, 55 N.Y.2d 633, 446 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3221 (N.Y. 1981).
430 N.E.2d 1318 (Marine Midland Bank v. Stukey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
767 Third Avenue LLC v. ORIX Capital Markets, LLC
26 A.D.3d 216 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Friends Lumber, Inc. v. Cornell Development Corp.
243 A.D.2d 886 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Koppell v. Long Island Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children
163 Misc. 2d 654 (New York Supreme Court, 1994)
Edison Stone Corp. v. 42nd Street Development Corp.
145 A.D.2d 249 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Western New York Geological Services, Inc. v. Mauro
135 A.D.2d 1123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Mitchell
100 A.D.2d 733 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
City of Niagara Falls v. Rudolph
99 A.D.2d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)