Armchair Races, Inc. v. Caso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Armchair Races, Inc. v. Caso

51 A.D.2d 565, 378 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10833

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 26, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 565 (Armchair Races, Inc. v. Caso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armchair Races, Inc. v. Caso, 51 A.D.2d 565, 378 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

a conversion action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 14, 1975, which (1) denied its motion for summary judgment and (2) granted the defendants’ application for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff’s plea of guilty to the charge of possession of a gambling device conclusively established the contraband nature of the materials; plaintiff is estopped from now asserting that the seized items were not gambling devices (see S. T. Grand, Inc. v City of New York, 32 NY2d 300; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Cherry, 45 AD2d 350). We do not reach, nor [566]*566do we decide, the constitutional question raised. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

a conversion action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 14, 1975, which (1) denied its motion for summary judgment and (2) granted the defendants’ application for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff’s plea of guilty to the charge of possession of a gambling device conclusively established the contraband nature of the materials; plaintiff is estopped from now asserting that the seized items were not gambling devices (see S. T. Grand, Inc. v City of New York, 32 NY2d 300; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Cherry, 45 AD2d 350). We do not reach, nor [566]*566do we decide, the constitutional question raised. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 565, 378 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armchair-races-inc-v-caso-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack