Matter of Hodge v Richardson
Annotate this CaseIn the Matter of Martin Hodge, Petitioner,
v
Clark V. Richardson, Respondent.
—[*1] Martin Hodge, petitioner pro se.
Michael Colodner, New York (John Eiseman of counsel), for respondent.
The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.