Geffner v. Mercy Medical Center

New York Court of Appeals

Geffner v. Mercy Medical Center

22 N.E.3d 1033, 24 N.Y.3d 1040, 2014 NY Slip Op 90835, 998 N.Y.S.2d 164, 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 3359

DecidedNovember 25, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 22 N.E.3d 1033 (Geffner v. Mercy Medical Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Geffner v. Mercy Medical Center, 22 N.E.3d 1033, 24 N.Y.3d 1040, 2014 NY Slip Op 90835, 998 N.Y.S.2d 164, 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 3359 (N.Y. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the August 2014 Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the April 2014 Appellate Division order, as against respondents Mercy Medical Center, Roy A. Rubenstein, Eric A. Shoenfeld, and Harte Placements, Inc., doing business as Nassau-Johrens Registry Agency, dismissed upon the ground that as to said parties such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the April 2014 Appellate Division order, as against the remaining respondents, denied.

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

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the August 2014 Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the April 2014 Appellate Division order, as against respondents Mercy Medical Center, Roy A. Rubenstein, Eric A. Shoenfeld, and Harte Placements, Inc., doing business as Nassau-Johrens Registry Agency, dismissed upon the ground that as to said parties such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the April 2014 Appellate Division order, as against the remaining respondents, denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 N.E.3d 1033, 24 N.Y.3d 1040, 2014 NY Slip Op 90835, 998 N.Y.S.2d 164, 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 3359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geffner-v-mercy-medical-center-ny-2014.