Opinion

CMTY. SCH. BD. DIST. 6, MANHATTAN v. Anker

  • 49 N.Y.2d 997
  • 429 N.Y.S.2d 187
  • 406 N.E.2d 1080
  • 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2350
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Filed
Apr 29, 1980
Status
Published
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 82.6%

The opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed, with $20 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements, upon the ground that the supporting papers do not comply with section 500.9 (a) (2) of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.9 [a] [2] [see June 11, 1979 notice to the Bar, NYLJ, June 15, 1979, p 6, col 2]).

REMINDER NOTICE TO THE BAR

The attention of the Bar is directed to the April 29, 1980 decision of the Court of Appeals in

Community School Bd. Dist. 6, Manhattan v Anker

dismissing a motion for leave to appeal for failure to comply with section 500.9 (a) (2) of the court’s Rules of Practice and to the following statement in the Court of Appeals June 11, 1979 notice to the Bar: "The requirements of the Rule [500.9 (a) (2)] may be fulfilled in the form either of a new brief or memorandum of law. This does not require that the entire Appellate Division brief be rewritten in Court of Appeals form, but only that the substantive elements of § 500.9 (a) (2) be fulfilled. Indeed, a single copy of

*999

the Appellate Division brief

in addition to

ten copies of the newly-written Court of Appeals brief or memorandum of law, complies with §§ 500.9 (a) (2) and 500.9 (a) (3).”

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.