Jerome B. Gratien v Frances G. Suszka
Annotate this Case
Gratien v Suszka
2003 NY Slip Op 20241 [2 AD3d 1492]
Decided on December 31, 2003
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on December 31, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND HAYES, JJ.
1632 CA 03-01409
[*1]JEROME B. GRATIEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, ORDER
v
FRANCES G. SUSZKA, KAREN ANN BISHOP, AND DONALD JAMES GRATIEN, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Nicholson, J.), entered September 13, 2002, which granted in part plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory judgment pursuant to RPAPL 915.
WILLIAM J. LEBERMAN, SYRACUSE, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
BERKOWITZ & PACE, ORCHARD PARK (EDWARD A. PACE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Entered: December 31, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Decided on December 31, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND HAYES, JJ.
1632 CA 03-01409
[*1]JEROME B. GRATIEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, ORDER
v
FRANCES G. SUSZKA, KAREN ANN BISHOP, AND DONALD JAMES GRATIEN, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Nicholson, J.), entered September 13, 2002, which granted in part plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory judgment pursuant to RPAPL 915.
WILLIAM J. LEBERMAN, SYRACUSE, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
BERKOWITZ & PACE, ORCHARD PARK (EDWARD A. PACE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Entered: December 31, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
