Lipkis v. Pikus

New York Court of Appeals

Lipkis v. Pikus

476 N.E.2d 331, 64 N.Y.2d 830, 486 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17606

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 476 N.E.2d 331 (Lipkis v. Pikus) 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

Lipkis v. Pikus, 476 N.E.2d 331, 64 N.Y.2d 830, 486 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17606 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The only issue presented by the question certified was whether the Appellate Division had the power to grant the relief given to petitioner by that court. The Appellate Division had the power. We pass on no other issue. Question certified answered in the affirmative (see, Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031; Serenity Homes v Town Bd., 37 NY2d 841).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative in a memorandum.

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