From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mully v. Drayn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 28, 1971
37 A.D.2d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Opinion

October 28, 1971

Appeal from the Ontario Special Term.

Present — Goldman, P.J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Gabrielli and Cardamone, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs; Goldman, P.J. not participating. Memorandum: Special Term, in its discretion, correctly stayed all proceedings under the judgment until the determination of the appeal therefrom, and properly fixed the undertaking to be filed by plaintiffs. The procedure employed and the hearing conducted by the court, while denominated as being brought pursuant to CPLR 5519 (subd. [a], par. 6), were in full conformity with the requirements and provisions of subdivision (c) thereof. Unlike the unilateral procedure contemplated by CPLR 5519 (subd. [a], par. 6), all necessary parties were served with notice of the application, defendants were afforded a full opportunity to be heard and the matter was determined following a complete hearing on the merits. We hold, therefore, that the application was actually and properly determined pursuant to CPLR 5519 (subd. [c]).


Summaries of

Mully v. Drayn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 28, 1971
37 A.D.2d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
Case details for

Mully v. Drayn

Case Details

Full title:FRANK MULLY et al., Respondents, v. ROBERT K. DRAYN et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Oct 28, 1971

Citations

37 A.D.2d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Citing Cases

Mountbatten Equit v. Tabard

At an August 9, 1976 hearing (whereat this court extended tenant's stay pending determination of subject…

Andrada Owners Corp. v. Digrazia

The decision also makes reference to exceptional circumstances, and has since been cited by the Appellate…