Skeet v. Department of Consumer Affairs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skeet v. Department of Consumer Affairs

172 A.D.2d 415, 570 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5009

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

DecidedApril 25, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 415 (Skeet v. Department of Consumer Affairs) 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

Skeet v. Department of Consumer Affairs, 172 A.D.2d 415, 570 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about November 28, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the action, and barred plaintiff from bringing any applications relating to his [416]*4161975 termination of employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The entry, in 1984, of final judgment dismissing the earlier action, which was not appealed, bars any further claim in this matter. Plaintiff has not established any basis for setting aside the final judgment. Further, in view of the numerous applications made by plaintiff to re-open the final judgment, none of which were shown to have merit, Supreme Court was warranted in barring further applications. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about November 28, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the action, and barred plaintiff from bringing any applications relating to his [416]*4161975 termination of employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The entry, in 1984, of final judgment dismissing the earlier action, which was not appealed, bars any further claim in this matter. Plaintiff has not established any basis for setting aside the final judgment. Further, in view of the numerous applications made by plaintiff to re-open the final judgment, none of which were shown to have merit, Supreme Court was warranted in barring further applications. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 415, 570 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skeet-v-department-of-consumer-affairs-nyappdiv-1991.