From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howell v. New York Post Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 9, 1993
82 N.Y.2d 690 (N.Y. 1993)

Opinion

Argued February 17, 1993

Decided July 9, 1993

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Carol E. Huff, J.

Schiavetti, DeVito, Begos Nicholson, New York City (Padraic D. Lee, Lori Ann Marano, Jacqueline Mandell and Peter Brown of counsel), for appellants.

Stroock Stroock Lavan, New York City (Laurence Greenwald, William A. Rome and Randy L. Shapiro of counsel), for respondents.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division insofar as it pertains to defendant New York Post Co., Inc., should be affirmed, with costs.

Subsequent to oral argument, the Post filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, and thus the appeal with respect to that defendant was stayed and our opinion applied only to the individual defendants (Howell v New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 118, n 1 [Apr. 5, 1993]). By order dated May 20, 1993, the Bankruptcy Court lifted the automatic stay for purposes of permitting this Court to render a decision with respect to the Post. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our Opinion of April 5, we now affirm as to the corporate defendant.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur; Judge SMITH taking no part.

Order, insofar as it pertains to defendant New York Post Company, Inc., affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Howell v. New York Post Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 9, 1993
82 N.Y.2d 690 (N.Y. 1993)
Case details for

Howell v. New York Post Company, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PAMELA J. HOWELL et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK POST COMPANY, INC., et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 9, 1993

Citations

82 N.Y.2d 690 (N.Y. 1993)

Citing Cases

Wiest v. Breslaw

While plaintiff's decedent acted unlawfully in possessing and ingesting ecstasy at the Twilo nightclub, such…

Warfield v. Terry

Therefore, the automatic stay is no longer in effect and we now consider the merits. Given plaintiff's…