Mulligan v. Merrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mulligan v. Merrick

172 A.D.2d 503, 568 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4301

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

DecidedApril 1, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 503 (Mulligan v. Merrick) 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

Mulligan v. Merrick, 172 A.D.2d 503, 568 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for libel and slander, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated May 16, 1988, as denied their motion for leave to withdraw their demand for a trial by jury.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendants’ motion for leave to withdraw their demand for a trial by jury is granted.

The court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for leave to withdraw their demand for a trial by jury (see, Gonzalez v Concourse Plaza Syndicates, 41 NY2d 414; cf., L 1990, ch 582). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for libel and slander, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated May 16, 1988, as denied their motion for leave to withdraw their demand for a trial by jury.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendants’ motion for leave to withdraw their demand for a trial by jury is granted.

The court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for leave to withdraw their demand for a trial by jury (see, Gonzalez v Concourse Plaza Syndicates, 41 NY2d 414; cf., L 1990, ch 582). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 503, 568 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulligan-v-merrick-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack