Sloninski v. Qui Pham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sloninski v. Qui Pham

194 A.D.2d 722, 601 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6466

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

DecidedJune 21, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 722 (Sloninski v. Qui Pham) 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

Sloninski v. Qui Pham, 194 A.D.2d 722, 601 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring the Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York, and the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Kings, Housing Part responsible for enforcing the terms of a consent order dated July 6, 1989, issued against the defendants Qui Pham and Minth Pham, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated March 22, 1991, which granted the cross motion of the municipal defendants to dismiss the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff was not a party to the proceeding in which the consent order was issued. Therefore, the action was properly dismissed for lack of standing (Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 NY2d 406). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring the Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York, and the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Kings, Housing Part responsible for enforcing the terms of a consent order dated July 6, 1989, issued against the defendants Qui Pham and Minth Pham, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated March 22, 1991, which granted the cross motion of the municipal defendants to dismiss the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff was not a party to the proceeding in which the consent order was issued. Therefore, the action was properly dismissed for lack of standing (Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 NY2d 406). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 722, 601 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloninski-v-qui-pham-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack