Legal Opinion
Arts4All, Ltd. v. Hancock
New York Court of Appeals
Decided May 12, 2009PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, *847should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary.
The courts below applied the correct legal standards, properly considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, and did not abuse their discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ remaining cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]).
Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum; Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
On review of submissions…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kihl v. PfefferNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
3Cited by34 opinions
- CDR Créances S.A.S. v. CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 2014
- Fish & Richardson, P.C. v. SchindlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Congleton v. United Health Services HospitalsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- CDR Créances S.A.S. v. CohenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Socio v. 136 East 56th Street Owners, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.