Erwin Pearl, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp.

468 N.E.2d 700, 62 N.Y.2d 1031, 479 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4496
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 2, 1984·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the Appellate Division (98 AD2d 619). We would add only that plaintiff’s affidavit on its motion to reargue failed to establish the merit of its case (see Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye.

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

Erwin Pearl, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 468 N.E.2d 700, 62 N.Y.2d 1031, 479 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4496 (N.Y. 1984).

468 N.E.2d 700 (Erwin Pearl, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fuentes v. 2254 Realty Co.
151 A.D.2d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
La Buda v. Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center
468 N.E.2d 675 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)