Goldfine v. SICHENZIA

882 N.E.2d 893, 10 N.Y.3d 738, 853 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2008 N.Y. LEXIS 209
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 12, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 882 N.E.2d 893 (Goldfine v. SICHENZIA) 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
Goldfine v. SICHENZIA, 882 N.E.2d 893, 10 N.Y.3d 738, 853 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2008 N.Y. LEXIS 209 (N.Y. 2008).

Opinion

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed so much of Supreme Court’s March 2005 order as denied appellants’ motion to amend the complaint, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.

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

Related

In the Matter of Hinspeter v. Bellantoni
882 N.E.2d 893 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
882 N.E.2d 893, 10 N.Y.3d 738, 853 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2008 N.Y. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldfine-v-sichenzia-ny-2008.