Defendant Friedlander, despite two prior orders of the Supreme Court, refused to convey shares of stock and the appurtenant proprietary lease, as directed.
Now, on appeal, Friedlander asserts for the first time that the prior orders were never served upon her. We see no reason to entertain this argument on appellate review. In any event, the record reveals that Friedlander had knowledge of and was in fact personally served with the orders.
The remaining arguments...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
