Stock Shop, Inc. v. New York Times Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stock Shop, Inc. v. New York Times Co.

223 A.D.2d 426, 637 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 372

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 426 (Stock Shop, Inc. v. New York Times Co.) 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

Stock Shop, Inc. v. New York Times Co., 223 A.D.2d 426, 637 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered on or about June 2, 1995, which granted plaintiff’s motion to renew its prior motion to restore this action to the trial calendar and, upon renewal, restored the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in restoring the case to the trial calendar, since the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.21 (f) were satisfied. Defendant’s contention that plaintiff made a "deliberate and knowing misrepresentation” to the court is unsubstantiated. Finally, we note that the IAS Court, in its prior order, dated January 6, 1995, clearly gave plaintiff the option of moving once again to restore this case to [427]*427the calendar. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered on or about June 2, 1995, which granted plaintiff’s motion to renew its prior motion to restore this action to the trial calendar and, upon renewal, restored the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in restoring the case to the trial calendar, since the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.21 (f) were satisfied. Defendant’s contention that plaintiff made a "deliberate and knowing misrepresentation” to the court is unsubstantiated. Finally, we note that the IAS Court, in its prior order, dated January 6, 1995, clearly gave plaintiff the option of moving once again to restore this case to [427]*427the calendar. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 426, 637 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stock-shop-inc-v-new-york-times-co-nyappdiv-1996.