Harris v. Goord

New York Court of Appeals

Harris v. Goord

742 N.E.2d 120, 95 N.Y.2d 917, 719 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 3541

DecidedNovember 21, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 742 N.E.2d 120 (Harris v. Goord) 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

Harris v. Goord, 742 N.E.2d 120, 95 N.Y.2d 917, 719 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 3541 (N.Y. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

On the Court’s own motion, appeal, insofar as taken from the Appellate Division order that denied appellant’s motion to renew and reargue, dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal, insofar as taken from the Appellate Division judgment dismissing the CPLR article 78 proceeding, dismissed, without costs, as untimely (see, CPLR 5513 [a]). Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order that denied appellant’s motion to renew and reargue, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding [918]*918within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division judgment dismissing the CPLR article 78 proceeding, dismissed as untimely (see, CPLR 5513 [b]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

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

On the Court’s own motion, appeal, insofar as taken from the Appellate Division order that denied appellant’s motion to renew and reargue, dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal, insofar as taken from the Appellate Division judgment dismissing the CPLR article 78 proceeding, dismissed, without costs, as untimely (see, CPLR 5513 [a]). Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order that denied appellant’s motion to renew and reargue, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding [918]*918within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division judgment dismissing the CPLR article 78 proceeding, dismissed as untimely (see, CPLR 5513 [b]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 N.E.2d 120, 95 N.Y.2d 917, 719 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 3541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-goord-ny-2000.