Stanley Weisz, P. C. Retirement Plan v. Holubar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanley Weisz, P. C. Retirement Plan v. Holubar

275 A.D.2d 704, 713 N.Y.S.2d 482, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9145

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 704 (Stanley Weisz, P. C. Retirement Plan v. Holubar) 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

Stanley Weisz, P. C. Retirement Plan v. Holubar, 275 A.D.2d 704, 713 N.Y.S.2d 482, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover payment on promissory notes, the plaintiff and the counterclaim-defendant appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 16, 1999, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered December 11, 1996, in favor of the defendants and against them on the counterclaims in the principal sum of $145,000, and dismissing the complaint, upon their failure, inter alia, to appear for trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants assert that the judgment entered upon their default, inter alia, in appearing at trial should be vacated because there was insufficient evidence at the inquest to support the amount of damages awarded. However, that issue was not raised in the Supreme Court, and, therefore, it is not properly before this Court {see, Block v Magee, 146 AD2d 730). Sullivan, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover payment on promissory notes, the plaintiff and the counterclaim-defendant appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 16, 1999, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered December 11, 1996, in favor of the defendants and against them on the counterclaims in the principal sum of $145,000, and dismissing the complaint, upon their failure, inter alia, to appear for trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants assert that the judgment entered upon their default, inter alia, in appearing at trial should be vacated because there was insufficient evidence at the inquest to support the amount of damages awarded. However, that issue was not raised in the Supreme Court, and, therefore, it is not properly before this Court {see, Block v Magee, 146 AD2d 730). Sullivan, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 704, 713 N.Y.S.2d 482, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-weisz-p-c-retirement-plan-v-holubar-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack