Wegenaar v. Peterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wegenaar v. Peterson

113 A.D.2d 938, 493 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52558

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.2d 938 (Wegenaar v. Peterson) 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

Wegenaar v. Peterson, 113 A.D.2d 938, 493 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on a promissory note prosecuted by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Hurowitz, J.), dated December 29, 1983, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the sum of $16,597.26. Defendant also purportedly appeals from an order of the same court, dated March 13, 1984, which denied his motion to vacate the judgment and to reargue the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Purported appeal from the order dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The record discloses that Special Term was correct in finding that there were no triable issues of fact necessitating a trial.

Defendant’s purported appeal from the order dated March 13, 1984 must be dismissed. Defendant never served or filed a notice of appeal from that order. In any event, defendant’s contentions with respect thereto lack merit. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on a promissory note prosecuted by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Hurowitz, J.), dated December 29, 1983, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the sum of $16,597.26. Defendant also purportedly appeals from an order of the same court, dated March 13, 1984, which denied his motion to vacate the judgment and to reargue the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Purported appeal from the order dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The record discloses that Special Term was correct in finding that there were no triable issues of fact necessitating a trial.

Defendant’s purported appeal from the order dated March 13, 1984 must be dismissed. Defendant never served or filed a notice of appeal from that order. In any event, defendant’s contentions with respect thereto lack merit. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.2d 938, 493 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wegenaar-v-peterson-nyappdiv-1985.