Taines v. Gene Barry One Hour Photo Process
108 A.D.2d 630, 486 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42979
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 7, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases
This text of 108 A.D.2d 630 (Taines v. Gene Barry One Hour Photo Process) 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
Taines v. Gene Barry One Hour Photo Process, 108 A.D.2d 630, 486 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).
Opinions
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur Lonschein, J.), entered on or about January 24, 1984, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Sandler, Sullivan and Ross, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
In re Jefferson County
491 B.R. 277 (N.D. Alabama, 2013)
Rosenbach v. Diversified Group, Inc.
85 A.D.3d 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Mathis v. United Homes, LLC
607 F. Supp. 2d 411 (E.D. New York, 2009)
DeAngelis v. AVC Services, Inc.
57 A.D.3d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Langer v. Miller
305 A.D.2d 270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Greene Avenue Associates v. Cardwell
191 Misc. 2d 775 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2002)
Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin
130 F. Supp. 2d 450 (S.D. New York, 2001)
In re Vetco, Inc.
260 A.D.2d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Hall v. King
177 Misc. 2d 126 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
Durandette v. City of Syracuse Fire Department
238 A.D.2d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Gordon & Co. v. Arthur H. Ross
84 F.3d 542 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Columbus McKinnon Corp. v. China Semiconductor Co.
867 F. Supp. 1173 (W.D. New York, 1994)
In re the Dissolution of Penepent Corp.
198 A.D.2d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc.
974 F.2d 270 (Second Circuit, 1992)
Harry J. Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc.
974 F.2d 270 (Second Circuit, 1992)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,739, 14 Ucc rep.serv.2d 336 J.B. Haralson, Cross-Appellants v. The E.F. Hutton Group, Inc., Cross-Appellees. The E.F. Hutton Group, Inc., Cross-Appellees v. George J. Aubin, Cross-Appellants
919 F.2d 1014 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)
Haralson v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc.
919 F.2d 1014 (Fifth Circuit, 1990)
Gerzof v. Coons
168 A.D.2d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Modern Settings, Inc. v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.
709 F. Supp. 70 (S.D. New York, 1989)
Columbia Management Co. v. Wyss
765 P.2d 207 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1988)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
108 A.D.2d 630, 486 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taines-v-gene-barry-one-hour-photo-process-nyappdiv-1985.