Martinez v. Olmedo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. Olmedo

122 A.D.2d 915, 505 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59412

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

DecidedAugust 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 915 (Martinez v. Olmedo) 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

Martinez v. Olmedo, 122 A.D.2d 915, 505 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Luis A. Olmedo as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held [916]*916on September 9, 1986, for the public office of New York State Senator from the 20th Senatorial District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.), dated August 6, 1986, which granted the application upon consent.

Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The judgment appealed from indicates that the proceeding was granted upon consent. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 5511.

Further, although it appears that there was a motion to vacate the judgment which was denied, there is no appeal from the order made on that motion. Thus, the appellant’s argument that the judgment was not entered with his consent has not been properly presented for review by this court. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Fiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Luis A. Olmedo as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held [916]*916on September 9, 1986, for the public office of New York State Senator from the 20th Senatorial District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.), dated August 6, 1986, which granted the application upon consent.

Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The judgment appealed from indicates that the proceeding was granted upon consent. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 5511.

Further, although it appears that there was a motion to vacate the judgment which was denied, there is no appeal from the order made on that motion. Thus, the appellant’s argument that the judgment was not entered with his consent has not been properly presented for review by this court. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Fiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 915, 505 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-olmedo-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack