Meckler v. Bergstol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meckler v. Bergstol

53 A.D.2d 662, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13401

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

DecidedJune 21, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 662 (Meckler v. Bergstol) 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

Meckler v. Bergstol, 53 A.D.2d 662, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to enjoin defendants from utilizing certain building plans and drawings, the corporate plaintiff and the defendants cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered March 17, 1976, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision denying the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment and by substituting therefor a provision to the effect that the said cross motion is granted. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see Wright v Eisle, 86 App Div 356). We do not agree with the holding in Shaw v Williamsville Manor (38 AD2d 442). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to enjoin defendants from utilizing certain building plans and drawings, the corporate plaintiff and the defendants cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered March 17, 1976, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision denying the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment and by substituting therefor a provision to the effect that the said cross motion is granted. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see Wright v Eisle, 86 App Div 356). We do not agree with the holding in Shaw v Williamsville Manor (38 AD2d 442). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 662, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meckler-v-bergstol-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack