Lovacco v. Hirsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lovacco v. Hirsch

250 A.D.2d 416, 672 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5400

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

DecidedMay 12, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 416 (Lovacco v. Hirsch) 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

Lovacco v. Hirsch, 250 A.D.2d 416, 672 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about June 12, 1997, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent New York City Chief Medical Examiner to disclose autopsy audiotapes and other records or reports of the person petitioner was convicted of murdering, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to dismiss was properly granted on authority of Matter of Mitchell v Borakove (225 AD2d 435, appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 919; see also, Matter of Katz v Scott, 236 AD2d 259, lv denied 90 NY2d 801). We have considered petitioner’s equal protection argument based upon the likelihood of success of a proceeding such as this if brought outside of the City of New York (see, Matter of Mitchell v Borakove, supra, distinguishing Matter of Diaz v Lukash, 82 NY2d 211), and find it to be without merit (see, Gardner v Michigan, 199 US 325, 333-334). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about June 12, 1997, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent New York City Chief Medical Examiner to disclose autopsy audiotapes and other records or reports of the person petitioner was convicted of murdering, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to dismiss was properly granted on authority of Matter of Mitchell v Borakove (225 AD2d 435, appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 919; see also, Matter of Katz v Scott, 236 AD2d 259, lv denied 90 NY2d 801). We have considered petitioner’s equal protection argument based upon the likelihood of success of a proceeding such as this if brought outside of the City of New York (see, Matter of Mitchell v Borakove, supra, distinguishing Matter of Diaz v Lukash, 82 NY2d 211), and find it to be without merit (see, Gardner v Michigan, 199 US 325, 333-334). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 416, 672 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovacco-v-hirsch-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack