Opinion · Nylaw New York

CURLEY v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, 155 A.D.2d 283 [1st Dept 1989]

THOMAS W. CURLEY, Respondent, v. Consol. RAIL Corp., Appellantand Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendant., 155 A.D.2d 283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1989)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1989-11-09
Topic: general

CURLEY v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, 155 A.D.2d 283 [1st Dept 1989] THOMAS W. CURLEY, Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Appellantand Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendant.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. November 9, 1989 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered on June 16, 1989, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed CURLEY v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, 155 A.D.2d 283 [1st Dept 1989]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

CURLEY v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION,155 A.D.2d 283[1st Dept 1989]

THOMAS W. CURLEY, Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Appellant

and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

November 9, 1989

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered on June 16, 1989, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We find no abuse of the IAS court's discretion. No opinion.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.