Mangold v. Neuman, 57 N.Y.2d 627

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. The courts below concluded that defendant’s dwelling place, where she stayed occasionally in connection with her business activities, was not a residence for purposes of CPLR 308 (subd 2). This affirmed factual determination is beyond the scope of our review, there being evidence in the record to support it.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Case Details

Case Name: Mangold v. Neuman

Court Name: New York Court of Appeals

Date Published: Jul 1, 1982

Citations: 57 N.Y.2d 627; 439 N.E.2d 867; 454 N.Y.S.2d 58; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3583

Court Abbreviation: N.Y.