Vergari v. Hirniak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vergari v. Hirniak

57 A.D.2d 931, 394 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12185

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

DecidedMay 23, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 931 (Vergari v. Hirniak) 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

Vergari v. Hirniak, 57 A.D.2d 931, 394 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to declare a forfeiture pursuant to section 3388 of the Public Health Law, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 28, 1976, as denied respondent-appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted to the extent that respondent-appellant is awarded summary judgment dismissing the forfeiture proceeding; and proceeding remanded to Special Term for a determination of respondent-appellant’s counterclaims. The institution of the forfeiture proceeding by the District Attorney was not timely pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 3388 of the Public Health Law. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to declare a forfeiture pursuant to section 3388 of the Public Health Law, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 28, 1976, as denied respondent-appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted to the extent that respondent-appellant is awarded summary judgment dismissing the forfeiture proceeding; and proceeding remanded to Special Term for a determination of respondent-appellant’s counterclaims. The institution of the forfeiture proceeding by the District Attorney was not timely pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 3388 of the Public Health Law. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 931, 394 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vergari-v-hirniak-nyappdiv-1977.