Ortiz v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Johnson

217 A.D.2d 688, 630 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8206

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

DecidedJuly 31, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 217 A.D.2d 688 (Ortiz v. Johnson) 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

Ortiz v. Johnson, 217 A.D.2d 688, 630 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the plaintiff from an [689]*689order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated December 14,1993. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court dated April 14, 1994, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination (see, CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 14, 1993, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 14, 1994, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 14, 1994, is affirmed insofar as reviewed for reasons stated by Justice Held at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the plaintiff from an [689]*689order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated December 14,1993. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court dated April 14, 1994, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination (see, CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 14, 1993, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 14, 1994, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 14, 1994, is affirmed insofar as reviewed for reasons stated by Justice Held at the Supreme Court; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 688, 630 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-johnson-nyappdiv-1995.