Casolaro v. Krupka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casolaro v. Krupka

281 A.D.2d 504, 721 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2629

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 504 (Casolaro v. Krupka) 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

Casolaro v. Krupka, 281 A.D.2d 504, 721 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to compel the defendant to refer to the parties’ child by the name listed in the child’s birth certificate, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), dated [505]*505May 30, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of laches.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs complaint as barred by the doctrine of laches (cf., Githens v Van Orden, 177 Misc 2d 918, affd 256 AD2d 1247). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to compel the defendant to refer to the parties’ child by the name listed in the child’s birth certificate, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), dated [505]*505May 30, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of laches.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs complaint as barred by the doctrine of laches (cf., Githens v Van Orden, 177 Misc 2d 918, affd 256 AD2d 1247). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 504, 721 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casolaro-v-krupka-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack