Curko v. Cafiero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curko v. Cafiero

107 A.D.2d 653, 485 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21637

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 107 A.D.2d 653 (Curko v. Cafiero) 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

Curko v. Cafiero, 107 A.D.2d 653, 485 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied; and insofar as it seeks reargument, the motion granted upon the following memorandum decision:

Upon reargument, the order of this court, dated November 29, 1984 (105 AD2d 1167), affirming the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (William P. McCooe, J.), entered on April 9, 1984, is adhered to. The order appealed from properly denied appellant’s cross motion for leave to renew its prior motion to change venue to Queens County, instead of placing venue of these consolidated actions in New York County. The actions consolidated by the order at Special Term now include parties defendant who are residents of New York County.

That aspect of the instant motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is denied. Concur — Ross, J. P., Carro, Fein and Milonas, JJ.

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

— Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied; and insofar as it seeks reargument, the motion granted upon the following memorandum decision:

Upon reargument, the order of this court, dated November 29, 1984 (105 AD2d 1167), affirming the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (William P. McCooe, J.), entered on April 9, 1984, is adhered to. The order appealed from properly denied appellant’s cross motion for leave to renew its prior motion to change venue to Queens County, instead of placing venue of these consolidated actions in New York County. The actions consolidated by the order at Special Term now include parties defendant who are residents of New York County.

That aspect of the instant motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is denied. Concur — Ross, J. P., Carro, Fein and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 653, 485 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curko-v-cafiero-nyappdiv-1984.