Teah v. Scalfani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teah v. Scalfani

51 A.D.2d 947, 381 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11648

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 947 (Teah v. Scalfani) 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

Teah v. Scalfani, 51 A.D.2d 947, 381 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 18, 1976, unanimously affirmed for the reasons set forth in the report of the Special Referee dated March 17, 1976, and confirmed by the order of the court, without costs and without disbursements. It is not possible on the [948]*948abbreviated transcript supplied to the court without stipulation to find any substantial basis to question the findings and conclusions of the Referee "that the petitioner has failed to sustain the burden of proof’ and that since "a series of witnesses were called who acknowledged their signatures * * * no irregularities or fraud were shown.” Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Birns and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 18, 1976, unanimously affirmed for the reasons set forth in the report of the Special Referee dated March 17, 1976, and confirmed by the order of the court, without costs and without disbursements. It is not possible on the [948]*948abbreviated transcript supplied to the court without stipulation to find any substantial basis to question the findings and conclusions of the Referee "that the petitioner has failed to sustain the burden of proof’ and that since "a series of witnesses were called who acknowledged their signatures * * * no irregularities or fraud were shown.” Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Birns and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 947, 381 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teah-v-scalfani-nyappdiv-1976.