Dun-Zheng Yan v. Kitzes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dun-Zheng Yan v. Kitzes

71 A.D.3d 889, 895 N.Y.S.2d 832

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 889 (Dun-Zheng Yan v. Kitzes) 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

Dun-Zheng Yan v. Kitzes, 71 A.D.3d 889, 895 N.Y.S.2d 832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In purported claims which were dismissed by orders of the Court of Claims [890]*890(Nadel, J.), dated May 1, 2007 and July 3, 2008, respectively, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Nadel J), entered May 7, 2009, which denied his motion for “an order to hold a preliminary conference.”

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant’s purported claims were dismissed by orders of the Court of Claims dated May 1, 2007, and July 3, 2008, respectively. Despite thesé orders, the claimant subsequently submitted motion papers to the court, in connection with the dismissed claims, for “an order to hold a preliminary conference.” Under such circumstances, the court properly concluded that it was “without jurisdiction to entertain . . . the motion, or to grant the relief requested” (see generally CPLR 304; Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714 [1997]; Fulton v State of New York, 35 AD3d 977 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In purported claims which were dismissed by orders of the Court of Claims [890]*890(Nadel, J.), dated May 1, 2007 and July 3, 2008, respectively, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Nadel J), entered May 7, 2009, which denied his motion for “an order to hold a preliminary conference.”

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant’s purported claims were dismissed by orders of the Court of Claims dated May 1, 2007, and July 3, 2008, respectively. Despite thesé orders, the claimant subsequently submitted motion papers to the court, in connection with the dismissed claims, for “an order to hold a preliminary conference.” Under such circumstances, the court properly concluded that it was “without jurisdiction to entertain . . . the motion, or to grant the relief requested” (see generally CPLR 304; Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714 [1997]; Fulton v State of New York, 35 AD3d 977 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 889, 895 N.Y.S.2d 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dun-zheng-yan-v-kitzes-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack