Case Summary: Ronald Fields v. Lucille Fields

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from an appeal in the matter captioned Ronald Fields, Appellant, v. Lucille Fields, Respondent, docket number 106, before the Court of Appeals of the State of New York. The opinion is dated June 10, 2010. The judicial panel notes that Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Pigott, and Jones concurred, while Judge Smith dissented in an opinion in which Judge Read concurred. The published disposition in the provided text is a single-line disposition: the order was affirmed, with costs. The provided opinion contains no further factual narrative or extended procedural history.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The text of the provided opinion contains no substantive reasoning or legal analysis. It is limited to the court's disposition: "Order affirmed, with costs." No explanation of legal principles, fact application, or rationale for the disposition appears in the excerpt provided.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Order affirmed, with costs.

Implications: The direct effect of this decision, as stated in the opinion, is that the underlying order appealed from remains in effect and the prevailing party is entitled to costs. The provided opinion does not include discussion of broader legal implications or establish a statement of new legal precedent.