John Hollings, Inc. v. Nick & Duke, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 1020 (NY 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
John Hollings, Inc. v. Nick & Duke, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 1020 (NY 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: GRAHAM, RAEQUEL L. v. JONES, CHARLESETA (nyappdiv, 2017-02-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" GRAHAM, RAEQUEL L. v. JONES, CHARLESETA
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
However, it is well settled that “the absence or possession of a driver’s license relates only to the authority for operating a vehicle, and not to its manner of operation” (Almonte v Marsha Operating Corp., 265 AD2d 357, 357 ; see Huff v Rodriguez, 88 AD3d 1274, 1275 , appeal dismissed 18 NY3d 869 , lv denied 18 NY3d 919 ; Firmes v Chase Manhattan Auto.
discussed Cited "see" Graham v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
However, it is well settled that “the absence or possession of a driver’s license relates only to the authority for operating a vehicle, and not to its manner of operation” (Almonte v Marsha Operating Corp., 265 AD2d 357, 357 [1999]; see Huff v Rodriguez, 88 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2011], appeal dismissed 18 NY3d 869 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 919 [2012]; Firmes v Chase Manhattan Auto.
discussed Cited "see" Graham v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
However, it is well settled that “the absence or possession of a driver’s license relates only to the authority for operating a vehicle, and not to its manner of operation” (Almonte v Marsha Operating Corp., 265 AD2d 357, 357 [1999]; see Huff v Rodriguez, 88 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2011], appeal dismissed 18 NY3d 869 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 919 [2012]; Firmes v Chase Manhattan Auto.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Holdings, Inc., Appellant,
v.
Nick & Duke, LLC, Et Al., Respondents, Et Al., Defendants
Motion No: 2012-100.
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 21, 2012.
964 N.E.2d 1020
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the November 2011 Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for reargument/renewal or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.