Holliday v. HUDSON ARMORED CAR & COURIER SERVICE, INC.

New York Court of Appeals

Holliday v. HUDSON ARMORED CAR & COURIER SERVICE, INC.

100 N.Y.2d 636

DecidedOctober 30, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 100 N.Y.2d 636 (Holliday v. HUDSON ARMORED CAR & COURIER SERVICE, INC.) 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

Holliday v. HUDSON ARMORED CAR & COURIER SERVICE, INC., 100 N.Y.2d 636 (N.Y. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

100 N.Y.2d 636 (2003)

ORLANDO HOLLIDAY et al., Appellants,
v.
HUDSON ARMORED CAR & COURIER SERVICE, INC., Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
HUDSON ARMORED CAR & COURIER SERVICE, INC., Second Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES et al., Second Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Submitted August 18, 2003. Decided October 30, 2003.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed Supreme Court's order denying appellants' motion for leave to amend the complaint, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the *637 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

100 N.Y.2d 636 (2003)

ORLANDO HOLLIDAY et al., Appellants,
v.
HUDSON ARMORED CAR & COURIER SERVICE, INC., Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
HUDSON ARMORED CAR & COURIER SERVICE, INC., Second Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES et al., Second Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Submitted August 18, 2003. Decided October 30, 2003.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed Supreme Court's order denying appellants' motion for leave to amend the complaint, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the *637 order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 N.Y.2d 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holliday-v-hudson-armored-car-courier-service-inc-ny-2003.