Case ID: ny3d_26/html/1152-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[48 NE3d 497, 28 NYS3d 355]
    In the Matter of Ming Tung et al., Appellants, v China Buddhist Association et al., Respondents.
    Decided February 18, 2016
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Alexander Palmer Kelly, New York City, for appellants.
    
      Capell Barnett Matalón & Schoenfeld LLP, New York City CJoseph Milano of counsel), for respondents.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated by Justice Judith J. Gische at the Appellate Division, First Department (124 AD3d 13 [2014]), and certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia.