Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Purpura v. Purpura

Purpura v. Purpura

225 A.D.2d 753, 639 N.Y.2d 958, 639 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3111
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Purpura v. Purpura. Read the opinion of the Court — 193 A.D.2d 793 →
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 1996·Published

Opinion

Notwithstanding his contention to the contrary, the defendant consented to have the matter determined by a Judicial Hearing Officer (see, CPLR 2104, 4317 [a]).

There is no merit to the parties’ remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Purpura v. Purpura, 225 A.D.2d 753, 639 N.Y.2d 958, 639 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 753 (Purpura v. Purpura) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.