Murray Hill Investments, Inc. v. Adas Yereim, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murray Hill Investments, Inc. v. Adas Yereim, Inc.

249 A.D.2d 284, 671 N.Y.S.2d 291

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

DecidedApril 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 284 (Murray Hill Investments, Inc. v. Adas Yereim, Inc.) 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

Murray Hill Investments, Inc. v. Adas Yereim, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 284, 671 N.Y.S.2d 291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by Murray Hill Investments, Inc., from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered September 13, 1996, and cross appeal by Citibank from stated portions of the same order.

Ordered that the appeal by Citibank is dismissed, as it was [285]*285not aggrieved by the portions of the order appealed from; and it is firrther,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by Murray Hill Investments, Inc., for reasons stated by Justice Áronin at the Supreme Court in a memorandum decision dated September 21, 1995; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendants in Action No. 3. Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Kráusman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by Murray Hill Investments, Inc., from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered September 13, 1996, and cross appeal by Citibank from stated portions of the same order.

Ordered that the appeal by Citibank is dismissed, as it was [285]*285not aggrieved by the portions of the order appealed from; and it is firrther,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by Murray Hill Investments, Inc., for reasons stated by Justice Áronin at the Supreme Court in a memorandum decision dated September 21, 1995; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendants in Action No. 3. Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Kráusman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 284, 671 N.Y.S.2d 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-hill-investments-inc-v-adas-yereim-inc-nyappdiv-1998.