Oppenheim v. Pemberton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oppenheim v. Pemberton

154 A.D.2d 843, 547 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13411

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 843 (Oppenheim v. Pemberton) 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

Oppenheim v. Pemberton, 154 A.D.2d 843, 547 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered March 16, 1988 in Sullivan County, which, inter alia, granted a motion by various defendants for partial summary judgment, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

The order appealed from granting a motion by defendants Dolphin Development Corporation, Blawite Properties, Inc., Fallsburgh Properties, Inc. and Edward J. Garling for partial summary judgment having been superseded by Supreme Court’s order granting renewal of that earlier motion, this appeal, brought by defendant Treasure Lake Associates, has been rendered moot (see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5517:l, at 174; see also, Public Serv. Truck Renting v Ambassador Ins. Co., 136 AD2d 911; Hyman v Hillelson, 79 AD2d 725, affd 55 NY2d 624).

Appeal dismissed, as moot, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered March 16, 1988 in Sullivan County, which, inter alia, granted a motion by various defendants for partial summary judgment, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

The order appealed from granting a motion by defendants Dolphin Development Corporation, Blawite Properties, Inc., Fallsburgh Properties, Inc. and Edward J. Garling for partial summary judgment having been superseded by Supreme Court’s order granting renewal of that earlier motion, this appeal, brought by defendant Treasure Lake Associates, has been rendered moot (see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5517:l, at 174; see also, Public Serv. Truck Renting v Ambassador Ins. Co., 136 AD2d 911; Hyman v Hillelson, 79 AD2d 725, affd 55 NY2d 624).

Appeal dismissed, as moot, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 843, 547 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oppenheim-v-pemberton-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack