Brittle v. Weltman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brittle v. Weltman

202 A.D.2d 1059, 612 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3545

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 1059 (Brittle v. Weltman) 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

Brittle v. Weltman, 202 A.D.2d 1059, 612 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth causes of action were pleaded with sufficient particularity to satisfy CPLR 3016 (b). Those causes of action are not "so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a response” (CPLR 3024 [a]). Defendant’s motion to change venue also is without merit. Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant individually, not against the partnership or business, and therefore the county designated by plaintiff is the appropriate place of trial (see, CPLR 503 [a]). Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to impose sanctions upon plaintiff with respect to dismissal of the second cause of action (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; Minister of Refrn. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411, 414). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Queens County, Dunkin, J. — Breach of Contract.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth causes of action were pleaded with sufficient particularity to satisfy CPLR 3016 (b). Those causes of action are not "so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a response” (CPLR 3024 [a]). Defendant’s motion to change venue also is without merit. Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant individually, not against the partnership or business, and therefore the county designated by plaintiff is the appropriate place of trial (see, CPLR 503 [a]). Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to impose sanctions upon plaintiff with respect to dismissal of the second cause of action (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; Minister of Refrn. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411, 414). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Queens County, Dunkin, J. — Breach of Contract.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 1059, 612 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brittle-v-weltman-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack