LILY HSU res, v. CARLYLE TOWERS COOPERATIVE B, INC. APPELLANTS def

LILY HSU res, v. CARLYLE TOWERS COOPERATIVE B, INC. APPELLANTS def — (INDEX NO. 5619/09)In an action, inter alia, to set aside a foreclosure sale of the plaintiffs' shares in a residential cooperative corporation, the defendants Carlyle Towers Cooperative "B", Inc., All Area Realty Services, Inc., and All Area Property Management Co. appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (James J. Golia, J.), entered March 30, 2011, as, upon denying, as academic, that branch of the motion of the plaintiff Lily Hsu, made pro se, which was to discharge the plaintiffs' attorney and permit the plaintiffs to proceed pro se, granted that branch of the motion which was to enforce the parties' stipulation of settlement and, in effect, denied their cross motion for an award of an attorney's fee and, in effect, to preclude the plaintiff Lily Hsu from moving pro se for any relief other than to discharge the plaintiffs' attorney and permit the plaintiffs to proceed pro se.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

LILY HSU res, v. CARLYLE TOWERS COOPERATIVE B, INC. APPELLANTS def — (INDEX NO. 5619/09)In an action, inter alia, to set aside a foreclosure sale of the plaintiffs’ shares in a residential cooperative corporation, the defendants Carlyle Towers Cooperative “B”, Inc., All Area Realty Services, Inc., and All Area Property Management Co. appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (James J. Golia, J.), entered March 30, 2011, as, upon denying, as academic, that branch of the motion of the plaintiff Lily Hsu, made pro se, which was to discharge the plaintiffs’ attorney and permit the plaintiffs to proceed pro se, granted that branch of the motion which was to enforce the parties’ stipulation of settlement and, in effect, denied their cross motion for an award of an attorney’s fee and, in effect, to preclude the plaintiff Lily Hsu from moving pro se for any relief other than to discharge the plaintiffs’ attorney and permit the plaintiffs to proceed pro se.

ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, so much of the order as denied, as academic, that branch of the motion of the plaintiff Lily Hsu which was to discharge the plaintiffs’ attorney and permit the plaintiffs to proceed pro se is vacated, and that branch of the motion of the plaintiff Lily Hsu is granted; and it is further,

LILY HSU res, v. CARLYLE TOWERS COOPERATIVE B, INC. APPELLANTS def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal