Anderson v. Young & Rubicam
930 N.E.2d 761, 14 N.Y.3d 909, 904 N.Y.S.2d 688, 2010 NY Slip Op 73544, 2010 N.Y. LEXIS 1232
Opinion
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. The order affirming the denial of the CPLR 4404 motion to set aside the verdict does not finally determine the action (see Cuadrado v New York City Tr. Auth., 14 NY3d 748 [2010]).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Anderson v. Young & Rubicam, 930 N.E.2d 761, 14 N.Y.3d 909, 904 N.Y.S.2d 688, 2010 NY Slip Op 73544, 2010 N.Y. LEXIS 1232 (N.Y. 2010).
930 N.E.2d 761 (Anderson v. Young & Rubicam) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. RD Legal Funding, LLC
332 F. Supp. 3d 729 (S.D. Illinois, 2018)
Echostar Satellite L.L.C. v. ESPN, Inc.
995 N.E.2d 179 (New York Court of Appeals, 2013)