CMTY. SCH. BD. DIST. 6, MANHATTAN v. Anker

New York Court of Appeals

CMTY. SCH. BD. DIST. 6, MANHATTAN v. Anker

406 N.E.2d 1080, 49 N.Y.2d 997, 429 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2350

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 29, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 406 N.E.2d 1080 (CMTY. SCH. BD. DIST. 6, MANHATTAN v. Anker) 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

CMTY. SCH. BD. DIST. 6, MANHATTAN v. Anker, 406 N.E.2d 1080, 49 N.Y.2d 997, 429 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2350 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed, with $20 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements, upon the ground that the supporting papers do not comply with section 500.9 (a) (2) of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.9 [a] [2] [see June 11, 1979 notice to the Bar, NYLJ, June 15, 1979, p 6, col 2]).

REMINDER NOTICE TO THE BAR

The attention of the Bar is directed to the April 29, 1980 decision of the Court of Appeals in Community School Bd. Dist. 6, Manhattan v Anker dismissing a motion for leave to appeal for failure to comply with section 500.9 (a) (2) of the court’s Rules of Practice and to the following statement in the Court of Appeals June 11, 1979 notice to the Bar: "The requirements of the Rule [500.9 (a) (2)] may be fulfilled in the form either of a new brief or memorandum of law. This does not require that the entire Appellate Division brief be rewritten in Court of Appeals form, but only that the substantive elements of § 500.9 (a) (2) be fulfilled. Indeed, a single copy of *999 the Appellate Division brief in addition to ten copies of the newly-written Court of Appeals brief or memorandum of law, complies with §§ 500.9 (a) (2) and 500.9 (a) (3).”

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed, with $20 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements, upon the ground that the supporting papers do not comply with section 500.9 (a) (2) of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.9 [a] [2] [see June 11, 1979 notice to the Bar, NYLJ, June 15, 1979, p 6, col 2]).

REMINDER NOTICE TO THE BAR

The attention of the Bar is directed to the April 29, 1980 decision of the Court of Appeals in Community School Bd. Dist. 6, Manhattan v Anker dismissing a motion for leave to appeal for failure to comply with section 500.9 (a) (2) of the court’s Rules of Practice and to the following statement in the Court of Appeals June 11, 1979 notice to the Bar: "The requirements of the Rule [500.9 (a) (2)] may be fulfilled in the form either of a new brief or memorandum of law. This does not require that the entire Appellate Division brief be rewritten in Court of Appeals form, but only that the substantive elements of § 500.9 (a) (2) be fulfilled. Indeed, a single copy of *999 the Appellate Division brief in addition to ten copies of the newly-written Court of Appeals brief or memorandum of law, complies with §§ 500.9 (a) (2) and 500.9 (a) (3).”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 N.E.2d 1080, 49 N.Y.2d 997, 429 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cmty-sch-bd-dist-6-manhattan-v-anker-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack