Home/New York Court of Appeals/Scarborough v. Zimmon

Scarborough v. Zimmon

453 N.E.2d 530, 59 N.Y.2d 945, 466 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3251
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 30, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 453 N.E.2d 530 (Scarborough v. Zimmon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
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).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 N.E.2d 530, 59 N.Y.2d 945, 466 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarborough-v-zimmon-ny-1983.