Meier v. Meier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meier v. Meier

204 A.D.2d 283, 614 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573

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

DecidedMay 2, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 283 (Meier v. Meier) 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

Meier v. Meier, 204 A.D.2d 283, 614 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to settle title to funds held in escrow, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Miller, J.), dated January 14, 1992, which held that the plaintiff and the defendant each possessed an undivided interest in the escrowed funds, and directed, inter alia, that the funds be deposited in a joint account in the names of the plaintiff and of the defendant in the Goshen Savings Bank.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs and disbursements.

The defendant has failed to order and settle the transcript of the hearing as required by CPLR 5525 (a). The appendix submitted by the defendant is patently insufficient for the [284]*284purpose of reviewing the issues raised by him and, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed (see, Fidelity Bond & Mtge. Co. v Taylor, 129 AD2d 765). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to settle title to funds held in escrow, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Miller, J.), dated January 14, 1992, which held that the plaintiff and the defendant each possessed an undivided interest in the escrowed funds, and directed, inter alia, that the funds be deposited in a joint account in the names of the plaintiff and of the defendant in the Goshen Savings Bank.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs and disbursements.

The defendant has failed to order and settle the transcript of the hearing as required by CPLR 5525 (a). The appendix submitted by the defendant is patently insufficient for the [284]*284purpose of reviewing the issues raised by him and, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed (see, Fidelity Bond & Mtge. Co. v Taylor, 129 AD2d 765). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 283, 614 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meier-v-meier-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack