Amendola v. Amendola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amendola v. Amendola

141 A.D.2d 593, 529 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6611

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 13, 1988·Published

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), dated July 10, 1987, as denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The factual allegations in the verified complaint are sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s cause of action for divorce has merit (CPLR 105 [t]; Bethlehem Steel Corp. v Solow, 51 NY2d 870; Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a matrimonial action, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.), dated July 10, 1987, as denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The factual allegations in the verified complaint are sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s cause of action for divorce has merit (CPLR 105 [t]; Bethlehem Steel Corp. v Solow, 51 NY2d 870; Indig v Finkelstein, 23 NY2d 728). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Amendola v. Amendola, 141 A.D.2d 593, 529 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

141 A.D.2d 593 (Amendola v. Amendola) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related