Case Summary

Caption: RONNIE GREENFIELD, ET AL., NEW YORK RESPONDENTS, COUNTY, v. PHILLES RECORDS, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS, AND AMERICAN EXPRESS CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Docket: No. 114

Court: Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date Decided: October 17, 2002

Panel / Participation: Opinion by Judge Graffeo. Judges Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur. Chief Judge Kaye and Judge Smith took no part.

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion is an appellate disposition arising from the captioned matter. The text provided contains no substantive factual narrative about the underlying dispute. Procedurally, the Court of Appeals issued an order that "modified" a prior order, remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings "in accordance with the opinion herein," and, as modified, affirmed the order. The opinion notes that the modification is "without costs."

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 provided text contains no extended exposition of legal reasoning. The Court's dispositive statement is concise: it modified the appealed order, remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, and affirmed the order as so modified. The opinion does not elaborate on the legal principles or factual findings that prompted the modification or remittal.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Order modified and remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings; as modified, affirmed.

Implications: The direct effects are (1) the appellate order is modified, (2) the case is remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this Court's opinion, and (3) the judgment is affirmed as modified. The modification is made "without costs." The opinion contains no discussion of broader legal implications or precedent-setting analysis; therefore no new legal precedent is identified in the text provided.