Schilling v. Garguilo

New York Court of Appeals

Schilling v. Garguilo

404 N.E.2d 736, 49 N.Y.2d 817, 427 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2179

DecidedMarch 18, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 404 N.E.2d 736 (Schilling v. Garguilo) 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

Schilling v. Garguilo, 404 N.E.2d 736, 49 N.Y.2d 817, 427 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2179 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

The disposition of this election case turned wholly on factual determinations beyond the power of our court to review; we perceive no questions of law on which the grant of leave to appeal could have been predicated. The effect of any inference to be drawn from the failure of certain individuals to take the [819]*819witness stand was for resolution by the Special Referee, Special Term and the Appellate Division. Their unanimous refusal to accord conclusive effect to such inference could not be error as a matter of law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

The disposition of this election case turned wholly on factual determinations beyond the power of our court to review; we perceive no questions of law on which the grant of leave to appeal could have been predicated. The effect of any inference to be drawn from the failure of certain individuals to take the [819]*819witness stand was for resolution by the Special Referee, Special Term and the Appellate Division. Their unanimous refusal to accord conclusive effect to such inference could not be error as a matter of law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 N.E.2d 736, 49 N.Y.2d 817, 427 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schilling-v-garguilo-ny-1980.