Schlossberg v. Varjabedian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schlossberg v. Varjabedian

19 A.D.3d 171, 795 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6124

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

DecidedJune 9, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 171 (Schlossberg v. Varjabedian) 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

Schlossberg v. Varjabedian, 19 A.D.3d 171, 795 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered September 21, 2004, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion to vacate her default in opposing plaintiffs motion to strike her answer, upon condition that defendant pay plaintiff $250, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Plaintiff waived her right to appeal by accepting and depositing the $250 check tendered by defendant in compliance with the condition in the order on appeal (Schulman v Levy Sonet & Siegel, 276 AD2d 384 [2000]). In any event, were we to reach the merits, we would affirm reinstatement of the answer upon the stated condition as a proper exercise of discretion. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered September 21, 2004, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion to vacate her default in opposing plaintiffs motion to strike her answer, upon condition that defendant pay plaintiff $250, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Plaintiff waived her right to appeal by accepting and depositing the $250 check tendered by defendant in compliance with the condition in the order on appeal (Schulman v Levy Sonet & Siegel, 276 AD2d 384 [2000]). In any event, were we to reach the merits, we would affirm reinstatement of the answer upon the stated condition as a proper exercise of discretion. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 171, 795 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlossberg-v-varjabedian-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack