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
This text of 930 N.E.2d 761 (Anderson v. Young & Rubicam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
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).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
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, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-young-rubicam-ny-2010.