Carvel v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carvel v. Davis

307 A.D.2d 964, 763 N.Y.S.2d 476

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

DecidedAugust 11, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 307 A.D.2d 964 (Carvel v. Davis) 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

Carvel v. Davis, 307 A.D.2d 964, 763 N.Y.S.2d 476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 77, inter alia, to remove Robert M. Davis and Mildred Arcadipane as trustees, Thomas Kornacki and Joan Kelly appeal from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, S.), dated February 25, 2002, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were for summary judgment on their cross claims for trustee commissions earned from March 1, 1989, to January 1, 1990, and dismissed the cross claims as barred by the statute of limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants’ original answers did not give sufficient notice of the transactions or occurrences which provide the basis of the cross claims asserted in their amended answer, as required by CPLR 203 (f), in order to avoid dismissal based upon the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations (see MacDonald v Windfield Bus. Papers, 270 AD2d 399 [2000]; Boccone v Island Fed. Mtge. Corp., 261 AD2d 350 [1999]; [965]*965Coleman, Grasso & Zasada Appraisals v Coleman, 246 AD2d 893, 894 [1998]; Padua v Falow, 230 AD2d 834 [1996]). The vague demands in the “wherefore clauses” of the original answers for “such compensation to which this Court believes [the appellants to be entitled]” was insufficient to give notice of the present cross claims for payment of commissions owed (see Wilensky v JRB Mktg. & Opinion Research, 137 AD2d 520 [1988]; 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3017.02). Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 77, inter alia, to remove Robert M. Davis and Mildred Arcadipane as trustees, Thomas Kornacki and Joan Kelly appeal from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, S.), dated February 25, 2002, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were for summary judgment on their cross claims for trustee commissions earned from March 1, 1989, to January 1, 1990, and dismissed the cross claims as barred by the statute of limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants’ original answers did not give sufficient notice of the transactions or occurrences which provide the basis of the cross claims asserted in their amended answer, as required by CPLR 203 (f), in order to avoid dismissal based upon the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations (see MacDonald v Windfield Bus. Papers, 270 AD2d 399 [2000]; Boccone v Island Fed. Mtge. Corp., 261 AD2d 350 [1999]; [965]*965Coleman, Grasso & Zasada Appraisals v Coleman, 246 AD2d 893, 894 [1998]; Padua v Falow, 230 AD2d 834 [1996]). The vague demands in the “wherefore clauses” of the original answers for “such compensation to which this Court believes [the appellants to be entitled]” was insufficient to give notice of the present cross claims for payment of commissions owed (see Wilensky v JRB Mktg. & Opinion Research, 137 AD2d 520 [1988]; 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3017.02). Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 964, 763 N.Y.S.2d 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carvel-v-davis-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack