Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Singer v. KRUL
Citations: 967 N.E.2d 699; 18 N.Y.3d 953; 944 N.Y.S.2d 474; 2012 NY Slip Op 68604; 2012 WL 1033929; 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 578Docket: Motion No: 2012-137
Court: New York Court of Appeals; March 29, 2012; New York; State Supreme Court
The Court of Appeals of New York dismissed Daniel Singer's motion for leave to appeal in the case against Casey Krul. The dismissal was based on the determination that the order in question does not constitute a final determination of the action as required by constitutional standards. The court referenced the precedent set in *Cuadrado v New York City Tr. Auth.*, which supports this interpretation. The motion was submitted on February 6, 2012, and the decision was made on March 29, 2012.