Connor v. Siebert

436 N.E.2d 1316, 56 N.Y.2d 674, 451 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3342
New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 4, 1982·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[676] OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

It was not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law for the Appellate Division to decline to entertain these actions for declaratory judgments on the ground that “no justiciable controversy exists upon which [the court] can properly rule” (CPLR 3001; New York Public Interest Research Group v Carey, 42 NY2d 527).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

In each case: Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Connor v. Siebert, 436 N.E.2d 1316, 56 N.Y.2d 674, 451 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3342 (N.Y. 1982).

436 N.E.2d 1316 (Connor v. Siebert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Passaro v. Lake George Park Commission
288 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Cleveland v. Department of Insurance
206 A.D.2d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Prospect v. Cohalan
65 N.Y. 867 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)