Breheny v. Roche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breheny v. Roche

81 A.D.2d 772, 438 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11411

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

DecidedMay 12, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 772 (Breheny v. Roche) 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

Breheny v. Roche, 81 A.D.2d 772, 438 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 17, 1979, affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of Justice Stecher at Special Term. Certain observations in addition are necessitated by what is said by our dissenting brother who, in effect conceding the applicability hereto of “Matter of Lee v Roche, (78 AD2d 288)”, regards the issue here as “one of essential fairness.” Petitioners-appellants disposed procedurally of the question of propriety of the challenged answers by entering into a stipulation, freely and voluntarily, to refer that issue to a test validation board for resolution. Contrary to the implications in the dissent, the board departed not one iota from the written agreement in any particular whatever. Having charted their course and followed it, petitioners cannot be now heard to complain. Concur — Sandler, Sullivan, Ross and Markewich, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 17, 1979, affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of Justice Stecher at Special Term. Certain observations in addition are necessitated by what is said by our dissenting brother who, in effect conceding the applicability hereto of “Matter of Lee v Roche, (78 AD2d 288)”, regards the issue here as “one of essential fairness.” Petitioners-appellants disposed procedurally of the question of propriety of the challenged answers by entering into a stipulation, freely and voluntarily, to refer that issue to a test validation board for resolution. Contrary to the implications in the dissent, the board departed not one iota from the written agreement in any particular whatever. Having charted their course and followed it, petitioners cannot be now heard to complain. Concur — Sandler, Sullivan, Ross and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 772, 438 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breheny-v-roche-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack