Moran v. McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C.

New York Court of Appeals

Moran v. McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C.

868 N.E.2d 223, 8 N.Y.3d 969, 836 N.Y.S.2d 541, 2007 N.Y. LEXIS 943

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 3, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 868 N.E.2d 223 (Moran v. McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C.) 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

Moran v. McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C., 868 N.E.2d 223, 8 N.Y.3d 969, 836 N.Y.S.2d 541, 2007 N.Y. LEXIS 943 (N.Y. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against defendants McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C., Pat McCarthy and Richard Safrath from the Appellate Division order of affirmance, dismissed as untimely. The prior motion for leave to appeal made to the Appellate Division was untimely as to defendants (see Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 12:3, at 436-437 [rev 3d ed 2005]). Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against nonparty respondents Joseph Giovanni, Mona Giovanni, William Votta and Adele Votta from so much of the Appellate Division order as affirmed Supreme Court’s order denying discovery, dismissed upon the ground that as to the nonparty respondents 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 the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

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

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against defendants McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C., Pat McCarthy and Richard Safrath from the Appellate Division order of affirmance, dismissed as untimely. The prior motion for leave to appeal made to the Appellate Division was untimely as to defendants (see Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 12:3, at 436-437 [rev 3d ed 2005]). Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against nonparty respondents Joseph Giovanni, Mona Giovanni, William Votta and Adele Votta from so much of the Appellate Division order as affirmed Supreme Court’s order denying discovery, dismissed upon the ground that as to the nonparty respondents 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 the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

868 N.E.2d 223, 8 N.Y.3d 969, 836 N.Y.S.2d 541, 2007 N.Y. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moran-v-mccarthy-safrath-carbone-pc-ny-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack