O'Neill v. Dublinsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Neill v. Dublinsky

133 A.D.2d 680, 519 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51717

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.2d 680 (O'Neill v. Dublinsky) 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

O'Neill v. Dublinsky, 133 A.D.2d 680, 519 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, for a refund of excess moneys paid for a trial transcript, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated September 2, 1986, which denied as moot his motion for leave to maintain the suit as a class action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the record presented, class action certification was properly denied. It was neither warranted nor necessary. In any event, since the defendant has tendered the excess payment, this action was properly found to be moot. Insofar as the principle involved here is concerned, this matter will be brought to the attention of the Chief Administrative Judge. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, for a refund of excess moneys paid for a trial transcript, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated September 2, 1986, which denied as moot his motion for leave to maintain the suit as a class action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the record presented, class action certification was properly denied. It was neither warranted nor necessary. In any event, since the defendant has tendered the excess payment, this action was properly found to be moot. Insofar as the principle involved here is concerned, this matter will be brought to the attention of the Chief Administrative Judge. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 680, 519 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-v-dublinsky-nyappdiv-1987.