Save Way Oil Co. v. Rosen

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Save Way Oil Co. v. Rosen

125 Misc. 2d 26, 480 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3364

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 29, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 125 Misc. 2d 26 (Save Way Oil Co. v. Rosen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Save Way Oil Co. v. Rosen, 125 Misc. 2d 26, 480 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order dated June 23, 1982 affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order dated July 7, 1982 dismissed as moot. Order dated February 15, 1983 reversed, without costs, and motion granted.

[27]*27We find that the action of the court on the first order appealed from to be proper in that the notice to appear was not proper or relevant to these actions and was more appropriate for supplementary proceedings. Since the money, which is the subject of the restraining order, has been removed from the account in question, no issue exists for this court to determine. Finally, the court below should have granted the motion to consolidate the actions in that there are common issues of law and fact involved.

Buschmann, J. P., Jones and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order dated June 23, 1982 affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order dated July 7, 1982 dismissed as moot. Order dated February 15, 1983 reversed, without costs, and motion granted.

[27]*27We find that the action of the court on the first order appealed from to be proper in that the notice to appear was not proper or relevant to these actions and was more appropriate for supplementary proceedings. Since the money, which is the subject of the restraining order, has been removed from the account in question, no issue exists for this court to determine. Finally, the court below should have granted the motion to consolidate the actions in that there are common issues of law and fact involved.

Buschmann, J. P., Jones and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 Misc. 2d 26, 480 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1984 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/save-way-oil-co-v-rosen-nyappterm-1984.