Legal Opinion

Scarborough v. Zimmon

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 30, 1983PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In this case the Appellate Division did not reverse the order of Special Term as a matter of law, but rather in the exercise of its own discretion as a substitute for that of Special Term. That it was authorized to do, and we cannot conclude that in so doing it erred as a matter of law (Scarborough v Zimmon, 56 NY2d 784).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler and Meyer concur; Judge Simons taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Scarborough v. ZimmonNew York Court of Appeals · 1982

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Courell v. KurznerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
  2. Sammons v. FreerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984