Scarborough v. Zimmon

453 N.E.2d 530, 59 N.Y.2d 945, 466 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3251
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 30, 1983·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In this case the Appellate Division did not reverse the order of Special Term as a matter of law, but rather in the exercise of its own discretion as a substitute for that of Special Term. That it was authorized to do, and we cannot conclude that in so doing it erred as a matter of law (Scarborough v Zimmon, 56 NY2d 784).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler and Meyer concur; Judge Simons taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Scarborough v. Zimmon, 453 N.E.2d 530, 59 N.Y.2d 945, 466 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3251 (N.Y. 1983).

453 N.E.2d 530 (Scarborough v. Zimmon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Courell v. Kurzner
118 A.D.2d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Sammons v. Freer
99 A.D.2d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)