RKO General, Inc. v. Cinema-Vue Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

RKO General, Inc. v. Cinema-Vue Corp.

46 A.D.2d 763, 362 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3607

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 763 (RKO General, Inc. v. Cinema-Vue Corp.) 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

RKO General, Inc. v. Cinema-Vue Corp., 46 A.D.2d 763, 362 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 11, 1974, affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellants $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The motion of third-party plaintiffs-respondents to dismiss the appeal is denied, and the motion of third-party defendants-appellants to delete from the record pages RA-6-17 “Handwriting Analysis,” is granted, said motions having been renewed on argument of the appeal. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano and Steuer, JJ.; Capozzoli and Lane, JJ., dissent in part in the following memorandum by Lane, J.: While I am in agreement with the majority of this court that the default judgment entered was not jurisdictionally defective, I nonetheless would remand this matter to Trial Term solely for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the assessment of damages (CPLR 3215, subd. [b]).

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 11, 1974, affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellants $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The motion of third-party plaintiffs-respondents to dismiss the appeal is denied, and the motion of third-party defendants-appellants to delete from the record pages RA-6-17 “Handwriting Analysis,” is granted, said motions having been renewed on argument of the appeal. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano and Steuer, JJ.; Capozzoli and Lane, JJ., dissent in part in the following memorandum by Lane, J.: While I am in agreement with the majority of this court that the default judgment entered was not jurisdictionally defective, I nonetheless would remand this matter to Trial Term solely for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the assessment of damages (CPLR 3215, subd. [b]).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 763, 362 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rko-general-inc-v-cinema-vue-corp-nyappdiv-1974.