You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Zaytsev v. Stanacard, LLC

Citations: 21 N.Y.3d 1071; 997 N.E.2d 143; 974 N.Y.S.2d 317; 2013 NY Slip Op 85374; 2013 WL 5181037; 2013 N.Y. LEXIS 2516

Court: New York Court of Appeals; September 17, 2013; New York; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal regarding the Appellate Division's affirmation of the Supreme Court's denial of summary judgment, citing that the Appellate Division's order does not constitute a final determination of the action as defined by the Constitution. Additionally, the appeal concerning the affirmation of the Supreme Court's decision to allow the respondent to voluntarily discontinue the action without prejudice was also dismissed, with the Court stating that there is no substantial constitutional question involved. Judge Abdus-Salaam did not participate in these decisions.

Legal Issues Addressed

Final Determination under Constitutional Definition

Application: The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the Appellate Division's order was not considered a final determination of the action under the constitutional definition.

Reasoning: The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal regarding the Appellate Division's affirmation of the Supreme Court's denial of summary judgment, citing that the Appellate Division's order does not constitute a final determination of the action as defined by the Constitution.

Voluntary Discontinuance of Action Without Prejudice

Application: The Court dismissed the appeal concerning the decision to allow voluntary discontinuance without prejudice, indicating no substantial constitutional question was present.

Reasoning: Additionally, the appeal concerning the affirmation of the Supreme Court's decision to allow the respondent to voluntarily discontinue the action without prejudice was also dismissed, with the Court stating that there is no substantial constitutional question involved.