Amsterdam Urban Renewal Agency v. McGrattan
449 N.E.2d 1273, 59 N.Y.2d 624, 463 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3033
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (91 AD2d 792).
[626]*626Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons. -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Amsterdam Urban Renewal Agency v. McGrattan, 449 N.E.2d 1273, 59 N.Y.2d 624, 463 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3033 (N.Y. 1983).
449 N.E.2d 1273 (Amsterdam Urban Renewal Agency v. McGrattan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Reliance National Indemnity Company v. Alston Jennings, Jr. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, a Partnership
189 F.3d 689 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)
Davis Auction House, Inc. v. Ontario National Bank
201 A.D.2d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Donald P. Ferguson
982 F.2d 404 (Tenth Circuit, 1992)
Muller v. Sherburne, Powers & Needham
143 F.R.D. 537 (S.D. New York, 1992)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Ferguson
982 F.2d 404 (Tenth Circuit, 1991)
Scognamillo v. Olsen
795 P.2d 1357 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1990)
Somma v. Gracey
544 A.2d 668 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)