Cunningham v. Nadjari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunningham v. Nadjari

51 A.D.2d 905, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11560

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 905 (Cunningham v. Nadjari) 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

Cunningham v. Nadjari, 51 A.D.2d 905, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Motions for a stay granted pending determination of appeals, on condition that appellant in each proceeding procures the record on appeal and serves and files appellant’s points on or before March 5, 1976, with notes of issue for March 11, 1976. Respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or before March 9, 1976. Concur—Markewich, Kupferman, Lupiano and Nunez, JJ.; Stevens, P. J., dissents as follows: I would deny the stay as the application, in my opinion, is premature. It would seem that attendance in response to the subpoena is required, at which time the issue of the extent of the power conferred as well as any relevant constitutional privileges could be asserted.

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

Motions for a stay granted pending determination of appeals, on condition that appellant in each proceeding procures the record on appeal and serves and files appellant’s points on or before March 5, 1976, with notes of issue for March 11, 1976. Respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or before March 9, 1976. Concur—Markewich, Kupferman, Lupiano and Nunez, JJ.; Stevens, P. J., dissents as follows: I would deny the stay as the application, in my opinion, is premature. It would seem that attendance in response to the subpoena is required, at which time the issue of the extent of the power conferred as well as any relevant constitutional privileges could be asserted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 905, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-nadjari-nyappdiv-1976.