april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acosta, JJ. 3407N Jonathan E. Vick, et al., Index 605143/99 Plaintiffs-Respondents, -against- Richard Albert, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Evelyn Renee Albert, et al., Defendants. _________________________ Robert A. Ross, Huntington, for appellants. Steven B. Sarshik, New York, for respondents. _________________________ Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered April 4, 2007, which denied the motion by defendants Albert and the Albert Greenberg & Vick and Godwin Realty partnerships to deposit funds into court as a satisfaction piece in order to stay enforcement of a judgment pending appeal, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs. After plaintiffs obtained a judgment against appellants, both sides appealed, during the pendency of which appellants moved to deposit funds into court pursuant to CPLR 5021(a)(3), in partial satisfaction and as an undertaking for the balance of the judgment, in order to stay enforcement. Appellants argued that a deposit made under CPLR 5021(a)(3), as opposed to an undertaking under CPLR 2501(2) or 5519(a)(2), tolls the running of postjudgment interest and avoids the requirement to pay the 2% administrative fee under CPLR 8010(1). Plaintiffs successfully 42
opposed the motion, and pending the instant appeal from that order, appellants filed an undertaking pursuant to CPLR 5519(a)(2), which does not require a court order to stay enforcement of the judgment. On January 17, 2008, this Court affirmed the judgment in plaintiffs’ favor (47 AD3d 482), effectively rendering the instant appeal moot. Were we to reach the merits, we would find that the motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellants’ effort to deposit funds pursuant to CPLR 5021(a)(3), since they failed to make an unconditional tender of the judgment prior to making the motion (Meilak v Atlantic Cement Co., 30 AD2d 254 [1968]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: APRIL 15, 2008 _______________________ CLERK 43
Page 1 and 2: SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION F
Page 3 and 4: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acost
Page 5 and 6: Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2
Page 7 and 8: Circle Rubbish launched “a force
Page 9 and 10: classes, and scheduling visits with
Page 13 and 14: was cut too deep. Defendants’ the
Page 21 and 22: witnesses and collective tailoring
Page 23 and 24: stipulated to the grounds, and the
Page 29 and 30: Mullaney v Wilbur, 421 US 684 [1975
Page 33 and 34: liability claims “share few, if a
Page 35 and 36: ecords of drug transactions and def
Page 37 and 38: argument that this testimony invade
Page 39 and 40: in the 12 hours prior to plaintiff
Page 41: individual as the sole tenant in th
Page 45 and 46: that defendant’s vehicle was regi
Page 47 and 48: arrests respectively. In fact, one
Page 49 and 50: inmate-victim who vaguely claimed t
Page 51 and 52: CATTERSON, J. (dissenting) Because
Page 53 and 54: person that’s in the cell closest
Page 55 and 56: evidence that anyone had intimidate
Page 57 and 58: him. See People v. Harte, 29 A.D.3d
Page 59 and 60: summary judgment on his Labor Law
Page 61 and 62: aise a triable issue as to construc
Page 63 and 64: specific substance of the conversat
Page 65 and 66: Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson
Page 67 and 68: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 69 and 70: interest of justice. As an alternat
Page 77 and 78: leave to amend the complaint to ass
Page 79 and 80: in the first degree. After being de
Page 83 and 84: decline to review it in the interes
Page 85 and 86: panelist understood that he needed
Page 93 and 94:
to be compensated for its services
Page 95 and 96:
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Will
Page 101 and 102:
Lippman, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, And
Page 103 and 104:
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonza
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Gonzalez, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley,
Page 109:
The Following Orders Were Entered A
show all

april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?