Air Stream Corp. v 3300 Lawson Corp.
Annotate this Case
Air Stream Corp. v 3300 Lawson Corp.
2012 NY Slip Op 02420
Decided on April 3, 2012
Court of Appeals
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on April 3, 2012
No. 116 SSM 8
[*1]Air Stream Corp., Appellant,
v
3300 Lawson Corp., Respondent.
Submitted by Floyd G. Grossman, for appellant.
Submitted by Linda S. Agnew, for respondent.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the principles of law expressed in Estate of Becker v Murtagh (___ NY3d ___ [2012] [decided today]). Because the legal standards Supreme Court employed were consonant with our decision in Becker, we remit to the Appellate Division rather than Supreme Court. Thus, the Appellate Division, in reviewing Supreme Court's judgment, should now apply the facts of this case to the law as expressed in Becker.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided April 3, 2012
Decided on April 3, 2012
No. 116 SSM 8
[*1]Air Stream Corp., Appellant,
v
3300 Lawson Corp., Respondent.
Submitted by Floyd G. Grossman, for appellant.
Submitted by Linda S. Agnew, for respondent.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the principles of law expressed in Estate of Becker v Murtagh (___ NY3d ___ [2012] [decided today]). Because the legal standards Supreme Court employed were consonant with our decision in Becker, we remit to the Appellate Division rather than Supreme Court. Thus, the Appellate Division, in reviewing Supreme Court's judgment, should now apply the facts of this case to the law as expressed in Becker.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided April 3, 2012
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.
