Phillips v. Baird

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Phillips v. Baird

151 A.D.2d 1048, 544 N.Y.S.2d 511

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

DecidedJune 2, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A.D.2d 1048 (Phillips v. Baird) 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

Phillips v. Baird, 151 A.D.2d 1048, 544 N.Y.S.2d 511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to vacate dismissal of appeal from abandonment denied as unnecessary. Memorandum: Although neither the order granting the motion for reargument nor the order upon reargument making the same determination as was made in the original order affected the appeal from the dismissal order (see, CPLR 5517 [a] [1]), the filing and service of the notice of appeal from the order upon reargument adhering to the original determination caused the appeal from the original order to become academic (see, 7 Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac |f 5517.01). No purpose would be served, therefore, in granting this motion for relief from the original order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1000.3 (b) (2) (i). Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

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

Motion to vacate dismissal of appeal from abandonment denied as unnecessary. Memorandum: Although neither the order granting the motion for reargument nor the order upon reargument making the same determination as was made in the original order affected the appeal from the dismissal order (see, CPLR 5517 [a] [1]), the filing and service of the notice of appeal from the order upon reargument adhering to the original determination caused the appeal from the original order to become academic (see, 7 Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac |f 5517.01). No purpose would be served, therefore, in granting this motion for relief from the original order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1000.3 (b) (2) (i). Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 1048, 544 N.Y.S.2d 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-baird-nyappdiv-1989.