Sheehan v. Rubenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheehan v. Rubenstein

149 A.D.2d 580, 540 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4969

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

DecidedApril 17, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 580 (Sheehan v. Rubenstein) 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

Sheehan v. Rubenstein, 149 A.D.2d 580, 540 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants G & S Fashions, Milton Rubenstein and Jeanne Rubenstein separately appeal [581]*581from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 1, 1988, which granted the plaintiffs motion to vacate a dismissal of the action and restored it to the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

We have examined the circumstances of this case and find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion. Rubin, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants G & S Fashions, Milton Rubenstein and Jeanne Rubenstein separately appeal [581]*581from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 1, 1988, which granted the plaintiffs motion to vacate a dismissal of the action and restored it to the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

We have examined the circumstances of this case and find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion. Rubin, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 580, 540 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehan-v-rubenstein-nyappdiv-1989.