Rodino v. Fincham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodino v. Fincham

102 A.D.2d 886, 477 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19113

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 25, 1984·Published

Opinion

— Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dachenhausen, J.), dated January 24,1983, dismissed. (See Matter ofAho, 39 NY2d 241, 248.) 11 Appeal by defendant Rist from an amended judgment of the same court, dated February 14,1983, dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.20 [f]). 11 Amended judgment of the same court, dated February 14, 1983, affirmed insofar as appealed from by defendant Fincham. (See De Long v County of Erie, 89 AD2d 376, affd 60 NY2d 296.) 11 Respondents are awarded one bill of costs payable by appellant Fincham. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Mangano and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dachenhausen, J.), dated January 24,1983, dismissed. (See Matter ofAho, 39 NY2d 241, 248.) 11 Appeal by defendant Rist from an amended judgment of the same court, dated February 14,1983, dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.20 [f]). 11 Amended judgment of the same court, dated February 14, 1983, affirmed insofar as appealed from by defendant Fincham. (See De Long v County of Erie, 89 AD2d 376, affd 60 NY2d 296.) 11 Respondents are awarded one bill of costs payable by appellant Fincham. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Mangano and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Rodino v. Fincham, 102 A.D.2d 886, 477 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

102 A.D.2d 886 (Rodino v. Fincham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related