Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Citation
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-07-03
Other Sections in This Document (21)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
- Graham Court Owners Corp. v. Powell, 196 Misc. 2d 825 (2003)
Full Text
892 charsRespondent then retained Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation Legal Services to represent her and on December 18, 2002, she moved to file an amended answer. The substance of the motion was adjourned but the parties stipulated to petitioner’s claim of $6,813.65 due and owing in rent through the end of December and for the provision of additional *827access dates for completion of repairs. On the return date the case was adjourned again and marked ready for trial. Respondent then made a motion on February 4, 2003, seeking that the “final for trial” marking be set aside, for leave to file an amended answer and for disclosure of the petitioner with respect to prior knowledge of lead hazards in the apartment and the building. A stipulation dated February 11, 2002 followed that provided for additional access dates, set up a motion submission schedule and adjourned the case again.