In re Hall

New York Court of Appeals

In re Hall

316 N.E.2d 330, 34 N.Y.2d 806, 359 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1529

DecidedJune 7, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 316 N.E.2d 330 (In re Hall) 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

In re Hall, 316 N.E.2d 330, 34 N.Y.2d 806, 359 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1529 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for leave to appeal and for a stay denied. Although the opinion of the Appellate Division unnecessarily and perhaps improperly mingled references to matters confined to witness impeachment with evidence received in chief by the referee, this is not sufficient to warrant granting leave to appeal. Substantively the determination is invulnerable and movant raises no significant issue of law meriting leave within this court’s limited power of review. (Judiciary Law, § 90, subds. 2, 8; see Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 452-453.)

Motions by (a) Upstate Trial Attorneys Association, Inc. for leave to file briefs amicus curiae, and (b) by New York State Trial Lawyers Association, Inc. for leave to file a brief and to argue amicus curiae, denied. (210 East 68th St. Corp. v. City Rent Agency, 34 N Y 2d 552.)

On the court’s own motion, appeal taken as of right dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

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

Motion for leave to appeal and for a stay denied. Although the opinion of the Appellate Division unnecessarily and perhaps improperly mingled references to matters confined to witness impeachment with evidence received in chief by the referee, this is not sufficient to warrant granting leave to appeal. Substantively the determination is invulnerable and movant raises no significant issue of law meriting leave within this court’s limited power of review. (Judiciary Law, § 90, subds. 2, 8; see Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 452-453.)

Motions by (a) Upstate Trial Attorneys Association, Inc. for leave to file briefs amicus curiae, and (b) by New York State Trial Lawyers Association, Inc. for leave to file a brief and to argue amicus curiae, denied. (210 East 68th St. Corp. v. City Rent Agency, 34 N Y 2d 552.)

On the court’s own motion, appeal taken as of right dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 N.E.2d 330, 34 N.Y.2d 806, 359 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hall-ny-1974.