Mangold v. Neuman

New York Court of Appeals

Mangold v. Neuman

439 N.E.2d 867, 57 N.Y.2d 627, 454 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3583

New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 1, 1982·Published·Cited by 9 cases

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] Concur: 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

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] Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Mangold v. Neuman, 439 N.E.2d 867, 57 N.Y.2d 627, 454 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3583 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

439 N.E.2d 867 (Mangold v. Neuman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related