Markovits v. Mitrany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Markovits v. Mitrany

12 A.D.3d 574, 784 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14207

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 574 (Markovits v. Mitrany) 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

Markovits v. Mitrany, 12 A.D.3d 574, 784 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In two related actions, inter alia, to partition a certain piece of real property pursuant to REAPL 901, Sion L. Mitrany, a defendant in action No. 1 and the defendant in action No. 2, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), dated May 9, 2003, as denied his cross motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated August 25, 1999, and an order of the same court dated April 12, 2001.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the parties’ agreement to enter into a stipulation settling the actions did not deprive the court of further jurisdiction to supervise and enforce the terms of the agreement (see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 53 [1979]; Greyston Found. v Nationwide Ins. Co., 288 AD2d 438 [2001]; M & B Equities v Parkway Gardens Owners, 286 AD2d 755 [2001]; Berrian v McCombs, 280 AD2d 442 [2001]). Further, the actions taken to enforce the terms of the settlement were proper.

[575]*575The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Ritter, H. Miller and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In two related actions, inter alia, to partition a certain piece of real property pursuant to REAPL 901, Sion L. Mitrany, a defendant in action No. 1 and the defendant in action No. 2, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), dated May 9, 2003, as denied his cross motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated August 25, 1999, and an order of the same court dated April 12, 2001.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the parties’ agreement to enter into a stipulation settling the actions did not deprive the court of further jurisdiction to supervise and enforce the terms of the agreement (see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 53 [1979]; Greyston Found. v Nationwide Ins. Co., 288 AD2d 438 [2001]; M & B Equities v Parkway Gardens Owners, 286 AD2d 755 [2001]; Berrian v McCombs, 280 AD2d 442 [2001]). Further, the actions taken to enforce the terms of the settlement were proper.

[575]*575The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Ritter, H. Miller and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 574, 784 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markovits-v-mitrany-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack