Legal Opinion · Dissent
Nadeau v. Tuley
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 19, 1990Published
1Dissent
Mahoney, P. J., and Mercure, J.,
dissent and vote to reverse in a memorandum by Mercure, J. Mercure, J. (dissenting). We respectfully dissent. Since the language of CPLR 6501 is clear and unambiguous on its face, the statute must be interpreted as it exists (see, Bender v Jamaica Hosp., 40 NY2d 560, 561-562; see also, Doctors Council v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 71 NY2d 669, 674-675). This is clearly an action in which the judgment demanded may "affect the * * * possession, use or enjoyment” of real property (CPLR 6501) and "the court cannot disregard the plain words of a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Braschi v. Stahl Associates Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Doctors Council v. New York City Employees' Retirement SystemNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Bender v. Jamaica HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- 220 East 56th Street Corp. v. Excelsior Savings BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
- Robert Fiance Hair Design Institute, Inc. v. Concourse Properties Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987