Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Glinski v. Lomenzo

24 A.D.2d 655

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1965-07-07
Topic
general

Per Curiam. We consider that we are bound, and that our decision must be controlled, by the order of the three-Judge District Court *656granted May 24, 1965, in WMCA v. Lomenzo (238 F. Supp. 916) subsequent to the decision of Matter of Orans (15 N Y 2d 339), which order was followed by the denial of a stay by the Supreme Court of the United States (Travia v. Lomenzo, 381 U.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Glinski v. Lomenzo. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
Per Curiam.

We consider that we are bound, and that our decision must be controlled, by the order of the three-Judge District Court *656 granted May 24, 1965, in WMCA v. Lomenzo (238 F. Supp. 916) subsequent to the decision of Matter of Orans (15 N Y 2d 339), which order was followed by the denial of a stay by the Supreme Court of the United States (Travia v. Lomenzo, 381 U. S. 431). Judgment and order modified, on the law and the facts, so as to reverse and dismiss the first cause of action, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Application by respondents-appellants for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals from our affirmance of the dismissal of the second and third causes of action granted. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.