1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 264 N.J.
  5. 264 N.J. Super. 408 (1993)
 

HAYNOSKI v. HAYNOSKI

264 N.J. Super. 408 (1993)

624 A.2d 1030

BENJAMIN HAYNOSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A SHAREHOLDER ON BEHALF OF JERSEY STEEL RULE DIE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LEONARD HAYNOSKI, SR., LEONARD HAYNOSKI, JR. AND CATHERINE HAYNOSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND JERSEY STEEL RULE DIE COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided May 20, 1993.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Marilyn Van Houten argued the cause for appellant, (Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, attorneys, Robert G. Rose, on the brief and Joseph Lunin, on the reply brief).

Emanuel Needle argued the cause for respondent (Kohn & Needle, attorneys; Mr. Needle, on the brief).

Before Judges PETRELLA, D'ANNUNZIO and KEEFE.

The opinion of the court was delivered by KEEFE, J.A.D.

Plaintiff Benjamin Haynoski brought a motion in aid of litigant's rights, pursuant to R. 1:10-5, to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement entered into between himself and his brother, Leonard Haynoski, Sr., as well as his brother's wife, Catherine Haynoski, and their son, Leonard Haynoski, Jr. Plaintiff claimed he had fulfilled all of his obligations under the settlement agreement. The motion specifically...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases