Legal Opinion

Enright v. Mintz

Civil Court of the City of New York

Decided December 13, 1982PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Harold Tompkins, J.

Respondent moves for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 234 of the Real Property Law. The parties have consented to a determination based upon the papers submitted, thus avoiding the necessity of holding a hearing on this issue (N. V. Madison, Inc. v Saurwein, 103 Misc 2d 996). Resolving these issues on papers, as done in the Federal courts, leads to an expeditious determination of whether the party is entitled to fees and the amount of the award and is in the interest of judicial economy.

The threshold question which must be resolved is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stewart v. . Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
  2. N. V. Madison, Inc. v. SaurweinAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1980
  3. Park South Associates v. EssebagCivil Court of the City of New York · 1982

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re USA Commercial Mortg. Co.District Court, D. Nevada · 2011
  2. 650 Park Avenue Corp. v. McRaeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987
  3. 3685 San Fernando Lenders, LLC v. Compass USA SPE LLCDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API