Cohalan v. Carey
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Har Enterprises v. Town of Brookhaven (N.Y. 1989)
- Briarwood Community Ass'n v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Segal v. Bliss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. City of New York (N.Y. 1986)
- Manes v. Simpson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Southampton Ass'n v. Planning Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Nys Law Enforcement Employees v. Cuomo (N.Y. 1984)
- Gerges v. Koch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- New York State Inspection, Security & Law Enforcement Employees, District Council 82 v. Cuomo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Inland Vale Farm Co. v. Stergianopoulos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- New York State Inspection, Security & Law Enforcement Employees, District Council 82, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Cuomo (New York Supreme Court 1984)
- Town of Yorktown v. New York State Department of Mental Hygiene (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Incorporated Village of Westbury v. Prevost (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
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
On the court’s own motion, appeal taken as of right dismissed, without costs, on the ground that the order appealed from is not final within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion to vacate stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 (subd [a], par 1) denied as unnecessary inasmuch as the dismissal of the appeal terminates the stay. Motion for leave to appeal to this court dismissed on the ground that the nonfinal order sought to be appealed from is not one within the curative purpose of CPLR 5602 (subd [a], par 2). Under the circumstances of this case, the court, pursuant to CPLR 5514 (subd [a]), orders that any other method of appeal sought to be utilized by petitioners be initiated by service upon the attorneys for respondents and by the filing with the appropriate court of the papers in pursuance thereof not later than 11:00 a.m., July 15, 1982. The order sought to be appealed from, which denied a preliminary injunction, being not only nonfinal but also involving a nonreviewable exercise of discretion by the Appellate Division, it appears doubtful that any other avenue of appeal to or for review by this court is available (cf. CPLR 5602, subd [b], par 1; 5713).
Judge Jones taking no part.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.