Selden Sanitary Corp. v. District Court

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Selden Sanitary Corp. v. District Court

56 A.D.2d 596, 391 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10666

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 596 (Selden Sanitary Corp. v. District Court) 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

Selden Sanitary Corp. v. District Court, 56 A.D.2d 596, 391 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit a certain criminal prosecution, the appeal (by permission) is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 15, 1976, which stayed all proceedings in the District Court of the County of Suffolk, First District, in a certain criminal prosecution against petitioners, pending the determination of the article 78 proceeding. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. In light of the stipulation entered into before a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting a stay (see Eidelberg v Steinberg, 6 AD2d 895). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit a certain criminal prosecution, the appeal (by permission) is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 15, 1976, which stayed all proceedings in the District Court of the County of Suffolk, First District, in a certain criminal prosecution against petitioners, pending the determination of the article 78 proceeding. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. In light of the stipulation entered into before a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting a stay (see Eidelberg v Steinberg, 6 AD2d 895). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 596, 391 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selden-sanitary-corp-v-district-court-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack