Ramona Productions, Inc. v. WBC Productions, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramona Productions, Inc. v. WBC Productions, Inc.

51 A.D.2d 524, 379 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10735

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 524 (Ramona Productions, Inc. v. WBC Productions, 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

Ramona Productions, Inc. v. WBC Productions, Inc., 51 A.D.2d 524, 379 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 12, 1975, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Technically, there was no default on the return [525]*525date of the motion since plaintiff appeared through its lawyer’s service and sought, unsuccessfully, to consent to a conditional 30-day order. Its motion for reargument, though treated as a motion to open a default, was properly granted in the court’s discretion (CPLR 5015, subd [a], par 1), and the conditions imposed have apparently been satisfied. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 12, 1975, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Technically, there was no default on the return [525]*525date of the motion since plaintiff appeared through its lawyer’s service and sought, unsuccessfully, to consent to a conditional 30-day order. Its motion for reargument, though treated as a motion to open a default, was properly granted in the court’s discretion (CPLR 5015, subd [a], par 1), and the conditions imposed have apparently been satisfied. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 524, 379 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramona-productions-inc-v-wbc-productions-inc-nyappdiv-1976.