Tully v. Tully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tully v. Tully

166 A.D.2d 440, 561 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11744

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 440 (Tully v. Tully) 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

Tully v. Tully, 166 A.D.2d 440, 561 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

— In four related actions seeking, inter alia, [441]*441corporate dissolution and the appointment of a receiver, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated January 5, 1990, which, inter alia, denied the plaintiffs motion for the appointment of a temporary receiver, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated March 23, 1990, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination of January 5, 1990. The defendants have purportedly filed a notice of cross appeal from the orders.

Ordered that upon the application of the appellant-respondent, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c]). Brown, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

— In four related actions seeking, inter alia, [441]*441corporate dissolution and the appointment of a receiver, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated January 5, 1990, which, inter alia, denied the plaintiffs motion for the appointment of a temporary receiver, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated March 23, 1990, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination of January 5, 1990. The defendants have purportedly filed a notice of cross appeal from the orders.

Ordered that upon the application of the appellant-respondent, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c]). Brown, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 440, 561 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tully-v-tully-nyappdiv-1990.