Shapiro v. Hambrose Stamps, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shapiro v. Hambrose Stamps, Ltd.

193 A.D.2d 517, 598 N.Y.S.2d 950

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

DecidedMay 20, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 517 (Shapiro v. Hambrose Stamps, Ltd.) 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

Shapiro v. Hambrose Stamps, Ltd., 193 A.D.2d 517, 598 N.Y.S.2d 950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered November 4, 1992, which granted defendant-respondent summary judgment to the extent sought, and directed entry of judgment against plaintiff totalling $354,975, severing the remaining counterclaim issues, and order, same court and Justice, entered October 13, 1992, which in relevant part, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment was based entirely on his contention that a Federal injunction was violated. He does not now challenge the IAS Court’s adverse determination of this issue. On the contrary, plaintiff now concedes that the Federal action involved different and unrelated facts. Were we to consider plaintiff’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal, we would find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered November 4, 1992, which granted defendant-respondent summary judgment to the extent sought, and directed entry of judgment against plaintiff totalling $354,975, severing the remaining counterclaim issues, and order, same court and Justice, entered October 13, 1992, which in relevant part, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment was based entirely on his contention that a Federal injunction was violated. He does not now challenge the IAS Court’s adverse determination of this issue. On the contrary, plaintiff now concedes that the Federal action involved different and unrelated facts. Were we to consider plaintiff’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal, we would find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 517, 598 N.Y.S.2d 950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shapiro-v-hambrose-stamps-ltd-nyappdiv-1993.