Union Chelsea National Bank v. Rumican 190 Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Union Chelsea National Bank v. Rumican 190 Corp.

717 N.E.2d 1079, 93 N.Y.2d 989, 695 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 1915

DecidedJuly 6, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 717 N.E.2d 1079 (Union Chelsea National Bank v. Rumican 190 Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Union Chelsea National Bank v. Rumican 190 Corp., 717 N.E.2d 1079, 93 N.Y.2d 989, 695 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 1915 (N.Y. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion, insofar as N. Marius Bucurescu seeks leave to appeal purportedly on behalf of Doina M. Bucurescu and Rumican 190 Corporation, dismissed upon the ground that N. Marius Bucurescu is not the authorized legal representative of said appellants and, as to Rumican 190 Corporation, cannot be its authorized legal representative (see, CPLR 321 [a]); motion for leave to appeal by N. Marius Bucurescu on his own behalf denied.

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

Motion, insofar as N. Marius Bucurescu seeks leave to appeal purportedly on behalf of Doina M. Bucurescu and Rumican 190 Corporation, dismissed upon the ground that N. Marius Bucurescu is not the authorized legal representative of said appellants and, as to Rumican 190 Corporation, cannot be its authorized legal representative (see, CPLR 321 [a]); motion for leave to appeal by N. Marius Bucurescu on his own behalf denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 N.E.2d 1079, 93 N.Y.2d 989, 695 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 1915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-chelsea-national-bank-v-rumican-190-corp-ny-1999.