Mangold v. Neuman
This text of 439 N.E.2d 867 (Mangold v. Neuman) 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.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. The courts below concluded that defendant’s dwelling place, where she stayed occasionally in connection with her business activities, was not a residence for purposes of CPLR 308 (subd 2). This affirmed factual determination is beyond the scope of our review, there being evidence in the record to support it.
[629]*629Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
439 N.E.2d 867, 57 N.Y.2d 627, 454 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangold-v-neuman-ny-1982.