Frank v. Coe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frank v. Coe

51 A.D.2d 992, 381 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11743

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 992 (Frank v. Coe) 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

Frank v. Coe, 51 A.D.2d 992, 381 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for abuse of process, plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 28, 1975, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and (2) a decision of the same court, dated July 25, 1975, upon which the order was made. Appeal from the decision dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from a decision. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. " 'The gist of the action for abuse of process lies in the improper use of process after it is issued’ ” (Hauser v Bartow, 273 NY 370, 373). Plaintiffs are in effect complaining of the institution of an action against them and not of any wrong committed in the execution of process during the course of that suit (see Miller v Stern, 262 App Div 5, 8). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Christ and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for abuse of process, plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 28, 1975, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and (2) a decision of the same court, dated July 25, 1975, upon which the order was made. Appeal from the decision dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from a decision. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. " 'The gist of the action for abuse of process lies in the improper use of process after it is issued’ ” (Hauser v Bartow, 273 NY 370, 373). Plaintiffs are in effect complaining of the institution of an action against them and not of any wrong committed in the execution of process during the course of that suit (see Miller v Stern, 262 App Div 5, 8). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Christ and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 992, 381 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-coe-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack