Meyer v. Meyer

New York Court of Appeals

Meyer v. Meyer

674 N.E.2d 334, 88 N.Y.2d 1062, 651 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 3351

DecidedOctober 22, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 674 N.E.2d 334 (Meyer v. Meyer) 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

Meyer v. Meyer, 674 N.E.2d 334, 88 N.Y.2d 1062, 651 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 3351 (N.Y. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that (1) affirmed Supreme Court’s order of February 15, 1994, except insofar as it affirmed the granting of appellant’s motion to resettle the amended judgment, and (2) affirmed that portion of Supreme Court’s order of May 11, 1995, denying appellant’s motion to hold respondent in contempt, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed that part of Supreme Court’s order of May 11, 1995, as directed arbitration, dismissed upon the ground that as to that part of the order, appellant is not a party aggrieved; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.

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

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that (1) affirmed Supreme Court’s order of February 15, 1994, except insofar as it affirmed the granting of appellant’s motion to resettle the amended judgment, and (2) affirmed that portion of Supreme Court’s order of May 11, 1995, denying appellant’s motion to hold respondent in contempt, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed that part of Supreme Court’s order of May 11, 1995, as directed arbitration, dismissed upon the ground that as to that part of the order, appellant is not a party aggrieved; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 N.E.2d 334, 88 N.Y.2d 1062, 651 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 3351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-meyer-ny-1996.