Legal Opinion
Zirinsky v. Violet Mills, Inc.
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided November 26, 1991PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Robert Charles Kohm, J.
Respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, serve and file their answer, for discovery, and petitioner’s cross motion to amend the notice of petition and petition are decided as follows:
Respondents’ motion is granted only to the extent of allowing respondents to serve and file their answer within five days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry upon the attorney for petitioner, and of setting the matter down for a hearing on the traverse as to service upon Violet Mills, Inc., and Maytex Mills, Inc., in Part 18 of this courthouse…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- New York University v. FarkasCivil Court of the City of New York · 1983
- S.P.S.G., Inc. v. ColladoCivil Court of the City of New York · 1982
- Cucinotta v. Saljon Enterprises, Ltd.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gazes v. Roswick (In Re Roswick)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1999
- First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. HakimianAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Bldg Management Co. v. Vision Quest of FlatbushNew York Supreme Court · 2003
- Empire State Building Co. v. Progressive Catering Services, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 2003
- White Angel Realty v. Asian Bros.Nassau County District Court · 2000