Knapp v. Hughes

New York Court of Appeals

Knapp v. Hughes

962 N.E.2d 252, 18 N.Y.3d 827, 938 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2011 NY Slip Op 92164, 2011 N.Y. LEXIS 3582

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 13, 2011

DocketMotion No: 2011-1030

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 962 N.E.2d 252 (Knapp v. Hughes) 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

Knapp v. Hughes, 962 N.E.2d 252, 18 N.Y.3d 827, 938 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2011 NY Slip Op 92164, 2011 N.Y. LEXIS 3582 (N.Y. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by defendants for leave to appeal granted. Motion by plaintiffs for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that it *828 does not lie, plaintiffs previously having moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the January 2006 Appellate Division order from which leave to appeal is currently sought (7 NY3d 921 [2006]). Moreover, no motion by plaintiffs for leave to appeal would lie to the Court of Appeals from the July 2011 Supreme Court judgment to bring up for review the January 2006 Appellate Division order as plaintiffs have appealed that judgment to the Appellate Division and simultaneous appeals do not lie to both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals (see Parker v Rogerson, 35 NY2d 751, 753 [1974]).

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

Motion by defendants for leave to appeal granted. Motion by plaintiffs for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that it *828 does not lie, plaintiffs previously having moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the January 2006 Appellate Division order from which leave to appeal is currently sought (7 NY3d 921 [2006]). Moreover, no motion by plaintiffs for leave to appeal would lie to the Court of Appeals from the July 2011 Supreme Court judgment to bring up for review the January 2006 Appellate Division order as plaintiffs have appealed that judgment to the Appellate Division and simultaneous appeals do not lie to both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals (see Parker v Rogerson, 35 NY2d 751, 753 [1974]).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

962 N.E.2d 252, 18 N.Y.3d 827, 938 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2011 NY Slip Op 92164, 2011 N.Y. LEXIS 3582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knapp-v-hughes-ny-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack