Jeffrey v. Jeffrey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jeffrey v. Jeffrey

120 A.D.2d 709, 502 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56832

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 27, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 709 (Jeffrey v. Jeffrey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jeffrey v. Jeffrey, 120 A.D.2d 709, 502 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to set aside a deed to real property, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated November 24, 1984, which, inter alia, set aside and canceled a certain deed, after a nonjury trial.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the court properly denied the defendants’ request for the disclosure of the plaintiffs welfare records. Since special circumstances were not present herein, the disclosure of the records was appropriately restricted (see, Early v County of Nassau, 98 AD2d 789; Addie W. v Charles U., 44 AD2d 727).

We have considered the defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to set aside a deed to real property, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated November 24, 1984, which, inter alia, set aside and canceled a certain deed, after a nonjury trial.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the court properly denied the defendants’ request for the disclosure of the plaintiffs welfare records. Since special circumstances were not present herein, the disclosure of the records was appropriately restricted (see, Early v County of Nassau, 98 AD2d 789; Addie W. v Charles U., 44 AD2d 727).

We have considered the defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 709, 502 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffrey-v-jeffrey-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack