Pilat v. Sachs
368 N.E.2d 31, 42 N.Y.2d 984, 398 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2308
Opinion
Memorandum. The courts below considered the question of permeation of fraud and irregularities, usually a question of fact, and resolved in each instance this question in respondents’ favor. (Matter of Ruiz v McKenna, 40 NY2d 815.) Consequently, the designating petition must be sustained and the order of the Appellate Division affirmed.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pilat v. Sachs, 368 N.E.2d 31, 42 N.Y.2d 984, 398 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2308 (N.Y. 1977).
368 N.E.2d 31 (Pilat v. Sachs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Molloy v. Scaringe
153 A.D.2d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Lundine v. Hirschfeld
122 A.D.2d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
D'Andre v. Canary
114 A.D.2d 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Beltz v. Board of Elections
83 A.D.2d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)