Zadar Construction & Woodworking, Inc. v. Charter Woodworking Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zadar Construction & Woodworking, Inc. v. Charter Woodworking Corp.

140 A.D.2d 603, 528 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5585

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

DecidedMay 23, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.2d 603 (Zadar Construction & Woodworking, Inc. v. Charter Woodworking Corp.) 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

Zadar Construction & Woodworking, Inc. v. Charter Woodworking Corp., 140 A.D.2d 603, 528 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Inasmuch as the plaintiffs attorney has informed this court that his client, the judgment creditor, has already obtained [604]*604from the defendant Spielvogel the material which it had sought by motion in the Supreme Court, Queens County, there is no longer any purpose to the instant appeal. As there is no showing by Spielvogel that the case involves a matter of great public importance, that it affects the entire State or that it presents a controversy likely to arise with frequency, the appeal is dismissed (see, Sedita v Board of Educ., 43 NY2d 827, 828). In any event, service of a subpoena upon Business Woodworking, Inc. would under the circumstances, have been a meaningless act (see, Planned Indus. Centers v Eric Bldrs., 51 AD2d 586, 587). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Inasmuch as the plaintiffs attorney has informed this court that his client, the judgment creditor, has already obtained [604]*604from the defendant Spielvogel the material which it had sought by motion in the Supreme Court, Queens County, there is no longer any purpose to the instant appeal. As there is no showing by Spielvogel that the case involves a matter of great public importance, that it affects the entire State or that it presents a controversy likely to arise with frequency, the appeal is dismissed (see, Sedita v Board of Educ., 43 NY2d 827, 828). In any event, service of a subpoena upon Business Woodworking, Inc. would under the circumstances, have been a meaningless act (see, Planned Indus. Centers v Eric Bldrs., 51 AD2d 586, 587). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 603, 528 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zadar-construction-woodworking-inc-v-charter-woodworking-corp-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack