Mully v. Drayn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mully v. Drayn

37 A.D.2d 901, 325 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3124

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 901 (Mully v. Drayn) 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

Mully v. Drayn, 37 A.D.2d 901, 325 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs; Goldman, P. J. not participating. Memorandum: Special Term, in its discretion, correctly stayed all proceedings under the judgment until the determination of the appeal therefrom, and properly fixed the undertaking to be filed by plaintiffs. The procedure employed and the hearing conducted by the court, while denominated as being brought pursuant to CPLR 5519 (subd. [a], par. 6), were in full conformity with the requirements and provisions of subdivision (e) thereof. Unlike the unilateral procedure contemplated by CPLR 5519 (subd. [a], par. 6), all necessary parties were served with notice of the application, defendants were afforded a full opportunity to be heard and the matter was determined following a complete hearing on the merits. We hold, therefore, that the application was actually and properly determined pursuant to CPLR 5519 (subd. [e]). (Appeal from part of order of Ontario Special Term staying proceedings.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Del Yecchio, Witmer, Gabrielli and Cardamone, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs; Goldman, P. J. not participating. Memorandum: Special Term, in its discretion, correctly stayed all proceedings under the judgment until the determination of the appeal therefrom, and properly fixed the undertaking to be filed by plaintiffs. The procedure employed and the hearing conducted by the court, while denominated as being brought pursuant to CPLR 5519 (subd. [a], par. 6), were in full conformity with the requirements and provisions of subdivision (e) thereof. Unlike the unilateral procedure contemplated by CPLR 5519 (subd. [a], par. 6), all necessary parties were served with notice of the application, defendants were afforded a full opportunity to be heard and the matter was determined following a complete hearing on the merits. We hold, therefore, that the application was actually and properly determined pursuant to CPLR 5519 (subd. [e]). (Appeal from part of order of Ontario Special Term staying proceedings.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Del Yecchio, Witmer, Gabrielli and Cardamone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 901, 325 N.Y.S.2d 454, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mully-v-drayn-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack