Santangelo v. Estate of Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santangelo v. Estate of Goldman

256 A.D.2d 79, 681 N.Y.S.2d 753

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 79 (Santangelo v. Estate of Goldman) 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

Santangelo v. Estate of Goldman, 256 A.D.2d 79, 681 N.Y.S.2d 753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered August 15, 1997, denying defendants’ motion to vacate a money judgment and order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about October 31, 1997, granting petitioner/plaintifFs application for permission to execute upon such judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to vacate the judgment. Even if we were to view defendants’ motion as one seeking to limit enforcement of the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5240, the authority provided by that section is not sufficiently plenary to allow a court acting thereunder to reduce the judgment to the extent of an unadjudicated offset claimed by the judgment debtor (see, Kolortron Sys. v Casey, 118 AD2d 687, appeal dismissed 68 NY2d 807). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Andidas, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered August 15, 1997, denying defendants’ motion to vacate a money judgment and order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about October 31, 1997, granting petitioner/plaintifFs application for permission to execute upon such judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to vacate the judgment. Even if we were to view defendants’ motion as one seeking to limit enforcement of the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5240, the authority provided by that section is not sufficiently plenary to allow a court acting thereunder to reduce the judgment to the extent of an unadjudicated offset claimed by the judgment debtor (see, Kolortron Sys. v Casey, 118 AD2d 687, appeal dismissed 68 NY2d 807). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Andidas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 79, 681 N.Y.S.2d 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santangelo-v-estate-of-goldman-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack