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

Romeo v. Schmid

244 A.D.2d 861, 668 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 19, 1997
DocketAppeal No. 2
StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 861 (Romeo v. Schmid) 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
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).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 A.D.2d 861, 668 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romeo-v-schmid-nyappdiv-1997.