Cangro v. Marangos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cangro v. Marangos

132 A.D.3d 573, 17 N.Y.S.3d 872

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2015

Docket15959 100278/13

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 573 (Cangro v. Marangos) 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

Cangro v. Marangos, 132 A.D.3d 573, 17 N.Y.S.3d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered July 10, 2013, which denied plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of discovery and dismissed the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly dismissed the action which, as with previous similar actions commenced by plaintiff, arises out of her divorce judgment (see 90 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2011], appeal dismissed 18 NY3d 985 [2012]; 61 AD3d 430 [1st Dept 2009]). Furthermore, plaintiff failed to comply with prior orders requiring her to obtain written approval from the administrative judge before commencing the action (see e.g. Cangro v Cangro, 288 AD2d 417 [2d Dept 2001]).

In any event, in addition to the fact that the complaint amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on the aforementioned divorce judgment, it fails to state a viable claim (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). The fraud allegations are not sufficiently detailed (see CPLR 3016 [b]), and the remainder of the complaint consists of bare legal conclusions (see Caniglia v Chicago Tribune-N.Y. News Syndicate, 204 AD2d 233 [1994]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered July 10, 2013, which denied plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of discovery and dismissed the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly dismissed the action which, as with previous similar actions commenced by plaintiff, arises out of her divorce judgment (see 90 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2011], appeal dismissed 18 NY3d 985 [2012]; 61 AD3d 430 [1st Dept 2009]). Furthermore, plaintiff failed to comply with prior orders requiring her to obtain written approval from the administrative judge before commencing the action (see e.g. Cangro v Cangro, 288 AD2d 417 [2d Dept 2001]).

In any event, in addition to the fact that the complaint amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on the aforementioned divorce judgment, it fails to state a viable claim (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). The fraud allegations are not sufficiently detailed (see CPLR 3016 [b]), and the remainder of the complaint consists of bare legal conclusions (see Caniglia v Chicago Tribune-N.Y. News Syndicate, 204 AD2d 233 [1994]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 573, 17 N.Y.S.3d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cangro-v-marangos-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack