Premo v. Cornell
This text of 434 N.E.2d 264 (Premo v. Cornell) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
434 N.E.2d 264, 55 N.Y.2d 962, 449 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/premo-v-cornell-ny-1982.