descrybe logo
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.

Raji v. Bank Sepah-Iran

Citations: 74 N.Y.2d 916; 549 N.Y.S.2d 955; 549 N.E.2d 146; 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 3285

Court: New York Court of Appeals; November 20, 1989; New York; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The motion to dismiss the appeal was granted, resulting in the appeal being dismissed without costs due to the absence of a substantial constitutional question involved. Additionally, the court dismissed the cross appeal on its own initiative, also without costs. This dismissal was based on the plaintiffs' stipulation to reduce the amount of damages they are entitled to, indicating they are not aggrieved by the modification for the purposes of appeal, as supported by relevant legal precedents (CPLR 5511; Smith v Hooker Chem. Plastics Corp. 69 NY2d 1029; Dudley v Perkins, 235 NY 448).

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Appeal for Lack of Substantial Constitutional Question

Application: The court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal due to the absence of a substantial constitutional question involved, resulting in the dismissal without costs.

Reasoning: The motion to dismiss the appeal was granted, resulting in the appeal being dismissed without costs due to the absence of a substantial constitutional question involved.

Dismissal of Cross Appeal on Court's Initiative

Application: The court dismissed the cross appeal on its own initiative and without costs, as the plaintiffs agreed to reduce the damages awarded, indicating no grievance with the modification on appeal.

Reasoning: Additionally, the court dismissed the cross appeal on its own initiative, also without costs. This dismissal was based on the plaintiffs' stipulation to reduce the amount of damages they are entitled to, indicating they are not aggrieved by the modification for the purposes of appeal.

Precedential Support for Dismissal Based on Lack of Aggrievance

Application: The legal precedents support the court's decision that the plaintiffs are not considered aggrieved due to their stipulation to reduce damages, thus justifying the dismissal of the appeal.

Reasoning: This dismissal was based on the plaintiffs' stipulation to reduce the amount of damages they are entitled to, indicating they are not aggrieved by the modification for the purposes of appeal, as supported by relevant legal precedents (CPLR 5511; Smith v Hooker Chem. Plastics Corp. 69 NY2d 1029; Dudley v Perkins, 235 NY 448).