Pollak v. WHC, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pollak v. WHC, Inc.

26 A.D.3d 183, 812 N.Y.S.2d 7

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 183 (Pollak v. WHC, 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

Pollak v. WHC, Inc., 26 A.D.3d 183, 812 N.Y.S.2d 7 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered March 10, 2005, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s motions to extend his time to serve additional defendants, and interim order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 22, 2004, which denied plaintiffs motion for recusal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs claims with respect to the amount due in foreclosure are barred by his stipulation of settlement in the foreclosure action (see Fifty CPW Tenants Corp. v Epstein, 16 AD3d 292, 294 [2005]), and an extension of time to serve additional defendants was properly denied in the absence of any merit to such claims (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105 [2001]). The Justice, as sole arbiter of recusal absent statutory grounds not present here (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405-406 [1987]), properly based her articulated view of plaintiffs position not on extrajudicial sources, but on her own knowledge and accurate perception of the case (see Matter of Herskowitz v Tompkins, 184 AD2d 402, 404 [1992], appeal dismissed 80 NY2d 1023 [1992]). We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered March 10, 2005, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s motions to extend his time to serve additional defendants, and interim order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 22, 2004, which denied plaintiffs motion for recusal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs claims with respect to the amount due in foreclosure are barred by his stipulation of settlement in the foreclosure action (see Fifty CPW Tenants Corp. v Epstein, 16 AD3d 292, 294 [2005]), and an extension of time to serve additional defendants was properly denied in the absence of any merit to such claims (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105 [2001]). The Justice, as sole arbiter of recusal absent statutory grounds not present here (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405-406 [1987]), properly based her articulated view of plaintiffs position not on extrajudicial sources, but on her own knowledge and accurate perception of the case (see Matter of Herskowitz v Tompkins, 184 AD2d 402, 404 [1992], appeal dismissed 80 NY2d 1023 [1992]). We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 183, 812 N.Y.S.2d 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollak-v-whc-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack