GRINKORN v. Seeley

860 N.E.2d 988, 7 N.Y.3d 920, 827 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 3909
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 21, 2006·Published

Opinion

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against Joseph Seeley, dismissed as untimely (see CPLR 5513 [b]; Eaton v State of New York, 76 NY2d 824 [1990]); motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against Michael Williams, dismissed upon the ground that appellant has failed to demonstrate timeliness as required by section 500.22 (b) (2) of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.22 [b] [2]).

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

GRINKORN v. Seeley, 860 N.E.2d 988, 7 N.Y.3d 920, 827 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 3909 (N.Y. 2006).

860 N.E.2d 988 (GRINKORN v. Seeley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eaton v. State
559 N.E.2d 675 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)