Weingrad & Weingrad v. Kevelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weingrad & Weingrad v. Kevelson

44 A.D.2d 523, 353 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5482

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 523 (Weingrad & Weingrad v. Kevelson) 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

Weingrad & Weingrad v. Kevelson, 44 A.D.2d 523, 353 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon the defendant-respondent’s motion renewed upon argument of the appeal, the plaintiff-appellant’s appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 15, 1967, and the judgment entered thereon on June 27,1967, is unanimously dismissed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The unjustifiable and prejudicial delay of over six years in perfecting the appeal requires its dismissal. Had we reached the merits of the appeal, we would have affirmed the determination of Special Term which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Steuer and Moore, JJ.

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

Upon the defendant-respondent’s motion renewed upon argument of the appeal, the plaintiff-appellant’s appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 15, 1967, and the judgment entered thereon on June 27,1967, is unanimously dismissed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The unjustifiable and prejudicial delay of over six years in perfecting the appeal requires its dismissal. Had we reached the merits of the appeal, we would have affirmed the determination of Special Term which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Steuer and Moore, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 523, 353 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weingrad-weingrad-v-kevelson-nyappdiv-1974.