Town of Putnam Valley v. Cabot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Putnam Valley v. Cabot

82 A.D.3d 959, 918 N.Y.2d 738

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 959 (Town of Putnam Valley v. Cabot) 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

Town of Putnam Valley v. Cabot, 82 A.D.3d 959, 918 N.Y.2d 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[960]*960So much of the order entered November 16, 2009, as approved the plaintiff Town of Putnam Valley’s restoration plan for certain real property is not appealable as of right, as it did not decide a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal from that portion of the order (see CPLR 5701 [c]).

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying their cross motion to modify the order dated March 12, 2009, by, among other things, “properly delineating] the . . . area of [the property] that could be the subject of the order,” and in granting the Town of Putnam Valley’s motion for the appointment of a receiver (see CPLR 5106).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P, Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

[960]*960So much of the order entered November 16, 2009, as approved the plaintiff Town of Putnam Valley’s restoration plan for certain real property is not appealable as of right, as it did not decide a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal from that portion of the order (see CPLR 5701 [c]).

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying their cross motion to modify the order dated March 12, 2009, by, among other things, “properly delineating] the . . . area of [the property] that could be the subject of the order,” and in granting the Town of Putnam Valley’s motion for the appointment of a receiver (see CPLR 5106).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P, Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 959, 918 N.Y.2d 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-putnam-valley-v-cabot-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack