Walter Sedovic Architect, P.C., Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant v. John A. Alesandro, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Appellees
This text of 237 F.3d 693 (Walter Sedovic Architect, P.C., Plaintiff-Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellant v. John A. Alesandro, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Appellees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Counsel for certain defendants-counter-claimants-appellees having informed this Court in or about November 2000 that the above action has been settled,
And this Court having unsuccessfully requested the parties to file a stipulation of discontinuance of the appeal, which was scheduled to be heard on January 10, 2001,
And this Court having telephoned the office of Philip Furgang, Furgang & Ad-war (“Furgang”), counsel of record for plaintiff-counterclaim-defendant-appellant (“plaintiff’), and having eventually been informed by Furgang that the matter has been settled and that written confirmation would be forthcoming from Kevin J. O’Neill, Gogic, Byrne & O’Neill (“O’Neill”), another firm representing plaintiff,
And O’Neill, having sent this Court a letter dated January 5, 2001, stating that this appeal has been rendered moot because the matter has been settled, and attaching a copy of a stipulation of dismissal filed in the district court and so-ordered by that court on December 4, 2000,
It is hereby ordered that the appeal be and it hereby is dismissed with prejudice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
237 F.3d 693, 2001 WL 40899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-sedovic-architect-pc-plaintiff-counterclaim-defendant-appellant-ca2-2001.