Anasky v. Allott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anasky v. Allott

61 A.D.2d 804, 402 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10242

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 14, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 804 (Anasky v. Allott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anasky v. Allott, 61 A.D.2d 804, 402 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover moneys paid defendant, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 15, 1977, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action or, in the alternative, to compel plaintiffs to add certain individuals as defendants. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Although the complaint is by no means artistically drawn, it states a cause of action. Special Term exercised sound discretion in disregarding plaintiffs-respondents’ tardiness in serving an answering affidavit. Defendant-appellant’s claim that necessary parties were not named as defendants lacks merit. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover moneys paid defendant, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 15, 1977, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action or, in the alternative, to compel plaintiffs to add certain individuals as defendants. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Although the complaint is by no means artistically drawn, it states a cause of action. Special Term exercised sound discretion in disregarding plaintiffs-respondents’ tardiness in serving an answering affidavit. Defendant-appellant’s claim that necessary parties were not named as defendants lacks merit. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 804, 402 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anasky-v-allott-nyappdiv-1978.