Scott v. Manilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scott v. Manilla

133 A.D.2d 537, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50025

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 A.D.2d 537 (Scott v. Manilla) 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

Scott v. Manilla, 133 A.D.2d 537, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: An appeal from an order in a CPLR article 78 proceeding does not lie as a matter of right (CPLR 5701 [b] [1]). Such an appeal is authorized only upon permission of the Judge who made the order or from a Justice of the Appellate Division (CPLR 5701 [c]). Since no permission to appeal has been granted, this appeal must be dismissed (Matter of Driscoll v Department of Fire, 112 AD2d 751; Matter of Steele v City of Buffalo Dept. of Community Dev., 86 AD2d 754; Hawley v Town of Aurora, 41 AD2d 588; Matter of Vivenzio v City of Utica, 30 AD2d 771). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — art 78.) Present —Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

— Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: An appeal from an order in a CPLR article 78 proceeding does not lie as a matter of right (CPLR 5701 [b] [1]). Such an appeal is authorized only upon permission of the Judge who made the order or from a Justice of the Appellate Division (CPLR 5701 [c]). Since no permission to appeal has been granted, this appeal must be dismissed (Matter of Driscoll v Department of Fire, 112 AD2d 751; Matter of Steele v City of Buffalo Dept. of Community Dev., 86 AD2d 754; Hawley v Town of Aurora, 41 AD2d 588; Matter of Vivenzio v City of Utica, 30 AD2d 771). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — art 78.) Present —Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 537, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-manilla-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack