Sadur v. Esposito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sadur v. Esposito

157 A.D.2d 662, 550 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 281

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.D.2d 662 (Sadur v. Esposito) 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

Sadur v. Esposito, 157 A.D.2d 662, 550 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondents from enforcing a judgment entered against the petitioners in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered October 20, 1989, in the case of Sadur v Doctors Hosp. (index No. 567/87), on the grounds, inter alia, that certain deficiencies exist with respect thereto, cross motion by the respondent Amabile & Erman, P. C., inter alia, for a more definite statement of the petition, and cross motion by the respondent Bivona & Cohen, P. C., to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the cross motion of Bivona & Cohen, P. C., is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross motion of Amabile & Erman, P. C., is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not properly lie under the instant circumstances in view of the apparent lack of merit of the petitioners’ contentions and the availability of an adequate remedy at law (see, Matter of Lipari v Owens, 70 NY2d 731; Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondents from enforcing a judgment entered against the petitioners in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered October 20, 1989, in the case of Sadur v Doctors Hosp. (index No. 567/87), on the grounds, inter alia, that certain deficiencies exist with respect thereto, cross motion by the respondent Amabile & Erman, P. C., inter alia, for a more definite statement of the petition, and cross motion by the respondent Bivona & Cohen, P. C., to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered that the cross motion of Bivona & Cohen, P. C., is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross motion of Amabile & Erman, P. C., is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not properly lie under the instant circumstances in view of the apparent lack of merit of the petitioners’ contentions and the availability of an adequate remedy at law (see, Matter of Lipari v Owens, 70 NY2d 731; Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 662, 550 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadur-v-esposito-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack