Salahuddin v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salahuddin v. Smith

91 A.D.2d 755, 458 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19646

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 A.D.2d 755 (Salahuddin v. Smith) 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

Salahuddin v. Smith, 91 A.D.2d 755, 458 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Dier, J.), entered January 6, 1982, which denied petitioner’s application for an order to show cause to commence proceedings against respondents pursuant to CPLR article 78. In view of our recent decision in Matter of King v Gregorie (90 AD2d 922), the present appeal must be dismissed. Were we to exercise our authority under CPLR 5704 (subd [a]), we would nonetheless hold that Special Term correctly denied petitioner’s application for having failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (see 7 NYCRR 5.45; 9 NYCRR 8008.8; Matter of Cosgrove v Klingler, 58 AD2d 910). Appeal [756]*756dismissed, without costs; application pursuant to CPLR 5704 (subd [a]), denied. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Dier, J.), entered January 6, 1982, which denied petitioner’s application for an order to show cause to commence proceedings against respondents pursuant to CPLR article 78. In view of our recent decision in Matter of King v Gregorie (90 AD2d 922), the present appeal must be dismissed. Were we to exercise our authority under CPLR 5704 (subd [a]), we would nonetheless hold that Special Term correctly denied petitioner’s application for having failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (see 7 NYCRR 5.45; 9 NYCRR 8008.8; Matter of Cosgrove v Klingler, 58 AD2d 910). Appeal [756]*756dismissed, without costs; application pursuant to CPLR 5704 (subd [a]), denied. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 755, 458 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salahuddin-v-smith-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack