Samuel v. Mace
190 A.D.2d 1066
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 1993·No. Appeal No. 1·Published
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
Samuel v. Mace, 190 A.D.2d 1066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).
190 A.D.2d 1066 (Samuel v. Mace) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hickson v. Gardner
134 A.D.2d 930 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
In re Piper
145 A.D.2d 97 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Town of Virgil v. Ford
160 A.D.2d 1073 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)