Schiller v. Maxwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schiller v. Maxwell

186 A.D.2d 555, 588 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11161

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 555 (Schiller v. Maxwell) 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

Schiller v. Maxwell, 186 A.D.2d 555, 588 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover escrow funds held for use of the plaintiffs by the defendant in the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated June 21, 1990, which denied his motion for a trial de novo.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant was not entitled to demand a trial de novo following the arbitrators’ entry of an award against him, because of his failure to appear at the arbitration hearing (see, 22 NYCRR 28.12 [a]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover escrow funds held for use of the plaintiffs by the defendant in the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated June 21, 1990, which denied his motion for a trial de novo.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant was not entitled to demand a trial de novo following the arbitrators’ entry of an award against him, because of his failure to appear at the arbitration hearing (see, 22 NYCRR 28.12 [a]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 555, 588 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schiller-v-maxwell-nyappdiv-1992.