People v. Tankleff

719 N.E.2d 916, 93 N.Y.2d 1034, 697 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 2938
New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 14, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

On the Court’s own motion, a dispensation of this Court’s Rules of Practice for the timely making of a reargument motion is granted (see, 22 NYCRR 500.11 [g] [3]). On the motion for reargument, the matter having been given due and full consideration, the motion is denied on the ground that the Court of Appeals did not overlook or misapprehend any relevant material or legal issue (see, 22 NYCRR 500.11 [g] [1]) with respect to the subject now reiterated on this Court’s decision on the direct appeal of this case (84 NY2d 992 [1994]).

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

People v. Tankleff, 719 N.E.2d 916, 93 N.Y.2d 1034, 697 N.Y.S.2d 556, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 2938 (N.Y. 1999).

719 N.E.2d 916 (People v. Tankleff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Tankleff
49 A.D.3d 160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)