Matter of Brodsky v. New York City Campaign Fin. Bd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Brodsky v. New York City Campaign Fin. Bd.

123 A.D.3d 637, 999 N.Y.S.2d 417

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2014

Docket13862 118316/06

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 637 (Matter of Brodsky v. New York City Campaign Fin. Bd.) 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

Matter of Brodsky v. New York City Campaign Fin. Bd., 123 A.D.3d 637, 999 N.Y.S.2d 417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered August 31, 2009, directing petitioner to remit to respondent an aggregate amount of $35,850, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This Court has rejected petitioner’s prior efforts pro se to vacate the underlying judgment, on the ground, among other things, that she has not been prejudiced by any technical defects in the judgment (see 80 AD3d 495 [1st Dept 2011]). Petitioner’s renewed attempts to vacate the judgment and collaterally attack the prior ruling holding her personally liable for the repayments owed to respondent are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and law of the case, and are otherwise without merit (see 107 AD3d 544 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered August 31, 2009, directing petitioner to remit to respondent an aggregate amount of $35,850, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This Court has rejected petitioner’s prior efforts pro se to vacate the underlying judgment, on the ground, among other things, that she has not been prejudiced by any technical defects in the judgment (see 80 AD3d 495 [1st Dept 2011]). Petitioner’s renewed attempts to vacate the judgment and collaterally attack the prior ruling holding her personally liable for the repayments owed to respondent are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and law of the case, and are otherwise without merit (see 107 AD3d 544 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 637, 999 N.Y.S.2d 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-brodsky-v-new-york-city-campaign-fin-bd-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack