De Vito v. Preferred Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Vito v. Preferred Mutual Insurance

130 A.D.2d 707, 515 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46726

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

DecidedMay 26, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A.D.2d 707 (De Vito v. Preferred Mutual Insurance) 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

De Vito v. Preferred Mutual Insurance, 130 A.D.2d 707, 515 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for malicious prosecution, abuse of process and prima facie tort, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated April 7, 1986, which dismissed their complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the order of the same court, dated January 21, 1986, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Jiudice at the Supreme Court, Dutchess County. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for malicious prosecution, abuse of process and prima facie tort, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated April 7, 1986, which dismissed their complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the order of the same court, dated January 21, 1986, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Jiudice at the Supreme Court, Dutchess County. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 707, 515 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-vito-v-preferred-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1987.