Premo v. Cornell

New York Court of Appeals

Premo v. Cornell

434 N.E.2d 264, 55 N.Y.2d 962, 449 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3145

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 16, 1982·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rule of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the Appellate Division abused its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]). Indeed, as we held in Barasch v Micucci (49 NY2d 594, 600-601), it would have been an abuse of discretion to have failed to dismiss.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rule of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the Appellate Division abused its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]). Indeed, as we held in Barasch v Micucci (49 NY2d 594, 600-601), it would have been an abuse of discretion to have failed to dismiss.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Premo v. Cornell, 434 N.E.2d 264, 55 N.Y.2d 962, 449 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3145 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

434 N.E.2d 264 (Premo v. Cornell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related