Tri-Mar Contractors, Inc. v. Bank of Suffolk County

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tri-Mar Contractors, Inc. v. Bank of Suffolk County

81 A.D.2d 637, 440 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11146

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

DecidedApril 20, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 637 (Tri-Mar Contractors, Inc. v. Bank of Suffolk County) 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

Tri-Mar Contractors, Inc. v. Bank of Suffolk County, 81 A.D.2d 637, 440 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for violation of a restraining notice, the defendant, Bank of Suffolk County, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 26, 1979, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel disclosure. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, defendant is granted summary judgment and the cross motion is denied. Subsequent to entry of the order from which this appeal was taken, the underlying judgment sought to be enforced by the plaintiff via a restraining notice was satisfied. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim against the defendant has become moot. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for violation of a restraining notice, the defendant, Bank of Suffolk County, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 26, 1979, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel disclosure. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, defendant is granted summary judgment and the cross motion is denied. Subsequent to entry of the order from which this appeal was taken, the underlying judgment sought to be enforced by the plaintiff via a restraining notice was satisfied. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim against the defendant has become moot. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 637, 440 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-mar-contractors-inc-v-bank-of-suffolk-county-nyappdiv-1981.