New York Court of Appeals, 1968

In re Huie

New York Court of Appeals · Decided April 18, 1968

21 N.Y.2d 1036; 238 N.E.2d 503; 291 N.Y.S.2d 14; 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1435

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Lynch v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Wisniewski v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Jones v. Kelly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Carreras v. Kelly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Tangredi v. Kelly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
McDonald v. Kelly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Grandinetti v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York Supreme Court 1986)
Men's World Outlet, Inc. v. Steinberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Catalogue Service of Westchester Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Mandy Pear, Ltd. v. Duca Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Pigno v. Bunim (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)

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

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether under Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Milwaukee (352 U. S. 948) we were bound, despite our own procedural rule that reargument on the basis of a subsequent appellate court decision may not be granted by our lower courts after the time to appeal from their decisions has elapsed, to consider claimant’s contention that the form of notice provided herein was insufficient under Schroeder v. City of New York (371 U. S. 208). The Court of Appeals, in passing upon this contention, held that Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Milwaukee {supra) did not require that our rule as to what may be considered on such a motion for reargument be *1037modified and therefore did not reach the question of the applicability of Schroeder v. City of New York {supra). [See 20 N Y 2d 568.]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.