Romeo v. Schmid
244 A.D.2d 861, 668 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 1997·No. Appeal No. 2·Published
Opinion
—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting a stay of enforcement of the judgment awarded by this Court on the prior appeal in this matter (Romeo v Schmidt, 229 AD2d 992, Iv dismissed 89 NY2d 1086; see, CPLR 2201; Michaelson Assocs. v Soifer, 182 AD2d 503, 505). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J.—Stay.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Romeo v. Schmid, 244 A.D.2d 861, 668 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).
244 A.D.2d 861 (Romeo v. Schmid) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mike Michaelson Associates, Inc. v. Soifer
182 A.D.2d 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Romeo v. Schmidt
229 A.D.2d 992 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)