Rubin v. Rubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubin v. Rubin

305 A.D.2d 198, 758 N.Y.S.2d 801, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5441

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

DecidedMay 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 198 (Rubin v. Rubin) 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

Rubin v. Rubin, 305 A.D.2d 198, 758 N.Y.S.2d 801, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered December 2, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for an automatic stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 (a) (6), staying the enforcement of that portion of the parties’ amended judgment of divorce requiring defendant to vacate a residence located in the Town of Southampton, New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[199]*199This Court’s prior denial of defendant’s motion for a discretionary stay did not prevent defendant from seeking an automatic stay upon the posting of an undertaking (see Pan Am. World Airways v Overseas Raleigh Mfg., 49 NY2d 780 [1980]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered December 2, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for an automatic stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 (a) (6), staying the enforcement of that portion of the parties’ amended judgment of divorce requiring defendant to vacate a residence located in the Town of Southampton, New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[199]*199This Court’s prior denial of defendant’s motion for a discretionary stay did not prevent defendant from seeking an automatic stay upon the posting of an undertaking (see Pan Am. World Airways v Overseas Raleigh Mfg., 49 NY2d 780 [1980]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 198, 758 N.Y.S.2d 801, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-rubin-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack