Sheehy v. WBRC Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheehy v. WBRC Corp.

291 A.D.2d 442, 737 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1664

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 442 (Sheehy v. WBRC Corp.) 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

Sheehy v. WBRC Corp., 291 A.D.2d 442, 737 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of certain real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered June 29, 2000, which denied their motion to vacate the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated January 12, 2000.

[443]*443Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there was no evidence of fraud so as to relieve the defendants of their obligations under the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated January 12, 2000 (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230; Binensztok v Bello, 285 AD2d 619, 621).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Smith, S. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of certain real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered June 29, 2000, which denied their motion to vacate the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated January 12, 2000.

[443]*443Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that there was no evidence of fraud so as to relieve the defendants of their obligations under the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated January 12, 2000 (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230; Binensztok v Bello, 285 AD2d 619, 621).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Smith, S. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 442, 737 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehy-v-wbrc-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack