Midway Cadillac Limousine Service Ford Bros. v. Cuevas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Midway Cadillac Limousine Service Ford Bros. v. Cuevas

255 A.D.2d 328, 679 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11580

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 328 (Midway Cadillac Limousine Service Ford Bros. v. Cuevas) 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

Midway Cadillac Limousine Service Ford Bros. v. Cuevas, 255 A.D.2d 328, 679 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to annul a determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board dated February 11, 1997, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered October 21, 1997, which granted the respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant proceeding (see, Vartanian v Research Found., 227 AD2d 744; Institute for Resource Mgt. v Roberts, 122 AD2d 465). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to annul a determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board dated February 11, 1997, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered October 21, 1997, which granted the respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant proceeding (see, Vartanian v Research Found., 227 AD2d 744; Institute for Resource Mgt. v Roberts, 122 AD2d 465). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 328, 679 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midway-cadillac-limousine-service-ford-bros-v-cuevas-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack