Lopes v. Adams
277 N.E.2d 672, 29 N.Y.2d 823, 327 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 961
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lopes v. Adams. Read the opinion of the Court — 30 N.Y.2d 499 →
Opinion
Motion granted. MVAIC lacks standing as an aggrieved party or otherwise to participate as a party to the appeal, its status as one entitled potentially to a right of contribution being insufficient (Nieves v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Auth., 24 N Y 2d 741, 1030; Mahar v. City of Albany, 303 N. Y. 672, cf. CPLR 1402).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lopes v. Adams, 277 N.E.2d 672, 29 N.Y.2d 823, 327 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 961 (N.Y. 1971).
277 N.E.2d 672 (Lopes v. Adams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mahar v. City of Albany
102 N.E.2d 832 (New York Court of Appeals, 1951)