Goldfine v. SICHENZIA

882 N.E.2d 893, 10 N.Y.3d 738, 853 N.Y.S.2d 280, 2008 N.Y. LEXIS 209
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 12, 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

882 N.E.2d 893 (Goldfine v. SICHENZIA) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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