CARDENAS v. BRIDGES (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,

Jerel CARDENAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith BRIDGES and Brenda Bridges, Defendants-Respondents.

571672 /25

Decided: February 18, 2026

PRESENT: James, P.J., Brigantti, Alpert, JJ.

Order (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered August 22, 2025, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court properly denied plaintiff's motions seeking various relief. This action was previously terminated by a so-ordered stipulation of discontinuance executed by the parties (see Lazare v Pfizer, Inc., 257 AD2d 498 [1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 1000 [1999]). A court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion after the action has been unequivocally terminated by the execution of “an express, unconditional stipulation of discontinuance” (Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 56 [1979]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network