Toys "R" Us—Nytex, Inc. v. First Atlantic Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toys "R" Us—Nytex, Inc. v. First Atlantic Realty Corp.

194 A.D.2d 408, 599 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6224

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

DecidedJune 15, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 408 (Toys "R" Us—Nytex, Inc. v. First Atlantic Realty Corp.) 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

Toys "R" Us—Nytex, Inc. v. First Atlantic Realty Corp., 194 A.D.2d 408, 599 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart C. Cohen, J.), entered April 10, 1992, which, to the extent relevant to the appeal as limited by the brief, granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 1006 (f) for discharge from this action and denied defendant-appellant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Notwithstanding that the court considered the motion for discharge pursuant to CPLR 1006 without a full, written notice of motion, defendant-appellant was given adequate opportunity to demonstrate that plaintiff had some possible stake in the disputed funds, and was unable to do so (cf., Birnbaum v Marine Midland Bank, 96 AD2d 776, 777). Summary judgment was appropriately denied, since the record suggests that much has been hidden (see, Karen S. v Streitferdt, 172 AD2d 440). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart C. Cohen, J.), entered April 10, 1992, which, to the extent relevant to the appeal as limited by the brief, granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 1006 (f) for discharge from this action and denied defendant-appellant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Notwithstanding that the court considered the motion for discharge pursuant to CPLR 1006 without a full, written notice of motion, defendant-appellant was given adequate opportunity to demonstrate that plaintiff had some possible stake in the disputed funds, and was unable to do so (cf., Birnbaum v Marine Midland Bank, 96 AD2d 776, 777). Summary judgment was appropriately denied, since the record suggests that much has been hidden (see, Karen S. v Streitferdt, 172 AD2d 440). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 408, 599 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toys-r-usnytex-inc-v-first-atlantic-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack