Atwood v. Pridgen
60 N.E.3d 408, 28 N.Y.3d 945, 2016 NY Slip Op 85242, 38 N.Y.S.3d 513, 2016 WL 4742498, 2016 N.Y. LEXIS 2752
This text of 60 N.E.3d 408 (Atwood v. Pridgen) 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
Atwood v. Pridgen, 60 N.E.3d 408, 28 N.Y.3d 945, 2016 NY Slip Op 85242, 38 N.Y.S.3d 513, 2016 WL 4742498, 2016 N.Y. LEXIS 2752 (N.Y. 2016).
Opinion
Motion for leave to appeal denied. The Court of Appeals restates the rule that denial of a motion for leave to appeal is not equivalent to an affirmance and has no precedential value (see Matter of Marchant v Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co., 252 NY 284, 297-298 [1929]).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Manufacturing Co.
169 N.E. 386 (New York Court of Appeals, 1929)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
60 N.E.3d 408, 28 N.Y.3d 945, 2016 NY Slip Op 85242, 38 N.Y.S.3d 513, 2016 WL 4742498, 2016 N.Y. LEXIS 2752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atwood-v-pridgen-ny-2016.