Florence Development Corp. v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Florence Development Corp. v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New York

52 A.D.2d 836, 383 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12658

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

DecidedMay 3, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 836 (Florence Development Corp. v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New York) 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

Florence Development Corp. v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New York, 52 A.D.2d 836, 383 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for defendants’ use of a certain sanitary sewer system maintained and operated by plaintiff, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 5, 1975, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendants’ time within which to serve an answer is extended until 10 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. The complaint states a cause of action. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for defendants’ use of a certain sanitary sewer system maintained and operated by plaintiff, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 5, 1975, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendants’ time within which to serve an answer is extended until 10 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. The complaint states a cause of action. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 836, 383 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florence-development-corp-v-board-of-education-of-city-school-district-of-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack