Ratliff v. Fogg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ratliff v. Fogg

54 A.D.2d 935, 388 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14801

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 935 (Ratliff v. Fogg) 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

Ratliff v. Fogg, 54 A.D.2d 935, 388 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to compel respondents to return certain papers confiscated from petitioner, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 20, 1975, which directed that certain papers not be returned to petitioner. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Following a hearing, and an inspection of the papers, it was determined that the papers bore no relationship to a material right of petitioner and that they had the potential for misuse to the detriment of persons named therein. We are in agreement with that determination. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to compel respondents to return certain papers confiscated from petitioner, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 20, 1975, which directed that certain papers not be returned to petitioner. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Following a hearing, and an inspection of the papers, it was determined that the papers bore no relationship to a material right of petitioner and that they had the potential for misuse to the detriment of persons named therein. We are in agreement with that determination. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 935, 388 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ratliff-v-fogg-nyappdiv-1976.