Carhuff v. Barnett's Bake Shop, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Krzyanowski v. Eveready Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Village of Scarsdale v. New York City Water Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Nunez v. Mousouras (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Young v. Tseng (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Nasca v. Gertel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Ramnarain v. Ramnarain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Echevarria v. Pathmark Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Juarbe v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Gateway Theatrical of Bellport, Inc. v. Associated Musicians of Greater New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Persing v. Coughlin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Dailey v. Allerton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Leis v. Finkelstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- In re Beiny (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- McGinnis v. Sheriff of Westchester County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225 (subd [b]), the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated February 5, 1976, which directed that a hearing be held concerning the transfer to appellants of certain notes. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellants’ contentions, that the petitioner abandoned his rights under the order appealed from and that he filed defective notices for an examination before trial, are founded upon matter not properly within the present record. Matters dehors the record are not to be considered on an appeal (see American Ind. Contr. Co. v Travelers Ind. Co., 54 AD2d 679). The other arguments raised by appellants have been considered and found to be without merit. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.