CMTY. SCH. BD. DIST. 6, MANHATTAN v. Anker
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Scicchitani v. Lopez (N.Y. 1984)
- In re the Claim of Bares (N.Y. 1981)
- Torsney v. Robert McGuire (N.Y. 1980)
- McCarty Material Fabricators v. Midwest Industrial Truck (N.Y. 1980)
- In re the Arbitration between Young & Administrator of the Fund for Participating Pledgors of F. I. du Pont, Glore Forgan & Co. (N.Y. 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
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).”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.