Samuel v. Mace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Samuel v. Mace

190 A.D.2d 1066

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1993

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 1066 (Samuel v. Mace) 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

Samuel v. Mace, 190 A.D.2d 1066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, we perceive no impropriety in Supreme Court’s rejection of respondents’ abandonment argument (see, 22 NYCRR 202.48 [a], [b]; Town of Virgil v Ford, 160 AD2d 1073, 1074; Matter of Piper, 145 AD2d 97, 102; cf., Hickson v Gardner, 134 AD2d 930). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J. — Preclude Entry of Order.) Present — Green, J. P., Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, we perceive no impropriety in Supreme Court’s rejection of respondents’ abandonment argument (see, 22 NYCRR 202.48 [a], [b]; Town of Virgil v Ford, 160 AD2d 1073, 1074; Matter of Piper, 145 AD2d 97, 102; cf., Hickson v Gardner, 134 AD2d 930). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J. — Preclude Entry of Order.) Present — Green, J. P., Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-v-mace-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack