Summary of Opinion: Saul Weinberg et al. v. Eric Shafler et al.

Court: Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Submitted: April 30, 1980

Decided: June 3, 1980

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from an appeal to the Court of Appeals from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Third Judicial Department. The caption identifies the parties as Saul Weinberg et al., appellants, and Eric Shafler et al., respondents. Counsel of record in this Court are identified as B. Edward Jaffe for the appellants and Victor M. Meyers for the respondents. The Court of Appeals' disposition is stated in a brief order that affirms the Appellate Division's order and refers to the memorandum opinion issued by the Appellate Division (68 A.D.2d 944) as supporting the affirmance.

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

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeals issued a concise disposition. Its reasoning, as stated in the opinion, is limited to the following steps:

1. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's order and assessed costs against the appellants.
2. The Court explicitly adopted the reasons set forth in the Appellate Division's memorandum (cited as 68 A.D.2d 944) rather than restating those reasons in full.
3. The basis for adopting the Appellate Division's reasoning is that the Appellate Division's view "more nearly conforms to the weight of the credible evidence." This indicates the Court accepted the Appellate Division's evidentiary assessment as controlling for purposes of affirmance.

No additional factual findings, legal analysis, or separate legal principles are articulated in this short opinion beyond the Court's adoption of the Appellate Division memorandum and the statement regarding the weight of credible evidence. The opinion also records the concurrence of Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Order affirmed, with costs.

Implications:

• The direct effect is that the Appellate Division's order is upheld and the appellants are liable for costs as determined by the Court of Appeals.
• The Court expressly relied on the Appellate Division memorandum (68 A.D.2d 944) as the basis for its affirmance because that memorandum's view was deemed to conform more nearly to the weight of the credible evidence.
• The opinion does not articulate broader legal rulings or establish new precedent beyond affirming the Appellate Division's decision on the record as described. No additional implications or rule-making statements are contained in the opinion.

Concurrence

The opinion notes concurrence by Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER.