Aronoff v. Albanese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aronoff v. Albanese

74 A.D.2d 810, 425 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10546

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 810 (Aronoff v. Albanese) 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

Aronoff v. Albanese, 74 A.D.2d 810, 425 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a stockholder’s derivative action, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 20, 1978, which treated defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as one for summary judgment, granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and (2) a further order of the same court, dated February 9, 1979, which denied their motion for reargument. Appeal from the order dated February 9, 1979 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. An order denying reargument is not appealable. (See Mazur v Mazur, 38 AD2d 951; Lefrak v Lefrak, 47 AD2d 912.) Order dated November 20, 1978 reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. In our view, there is nothing in the record here which would provide the adequate notice requisite to converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. "A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a]) may not be treated as one for summary judgment without adequate notice to the parties (CPLR 3211, subd [c]; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633). The record reveals no such notice” (Fletcher v Fletcher, 56 AD2d 589, 590; see, also, Mobil Oil Corp. v Town of North Hempstead, 59 AD2d 551; Keller v Barry, 73 AD2d 611). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a stockholder’s derivative action, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 20, 1978, which treated defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as one for summary judgment, granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and (2) a further order of the same court, dated February 9, 1979, which denied their motion for reargument. Appeal from the order dated February 9, 1979 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. An order denying reargument is not appealable. (See Mazur v Mazur, 38 AD2d 951; Lefrak v Lefrak, 47 AD2d 912.) Order dated November 20, 1978 reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. In our view, there is nothing in the record here which would provide the adequate notice requisite to converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. "A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a]) may not be treated as one for summary judgment without adequate notice to the parties (CPLR 3211, subd [c]; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633). The record reveals no such notice” (Fletcher v Fletcher, 56 AD2d 589, 590; see, also, Mobil Oil Corp. v Town of North Hempstead, 59 AD2d 551; Keller v Barry, 73 AD2d 611). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 810, 425 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aronoff-v-albanese-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack