Legal Opinion

Pilat v. Sachs

New York Court of Appeals

Decided August 31, 1977PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum. The courts below considered the question of permeation of fraud and irregularities, usually a question of fact, and resolved in each instance this question in respondents’ favor. (Matter of Ruiz v McKenna, 40 NY2d 815.) Consequently, the designating petition must be sustained and the order of the Appellate Division affirmed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ruiz v. McKennaNew York Court of Appeals · 1976

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lundine v. HirschfeldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
  2. Molloy v. ScaringeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  3. Beltz v. Board of ElectionsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  4. D'Andre v. CanaryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985