Friedman v. 16 Madison Square Housing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. 16 Madison Square Housing Corp.

113 A.D.3d 557, 979 N.Y.2d 516

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 557 (Friedman v. 16 Madison Square Housing Corp.) 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

Friedman v. 16 Madison Square Housing Corp., 113 A.D.3d 557, 979 N.Y.2d 516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion court correctly dismissed the complaint because “there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action” in Supreme Court (CPLR 3211 [a] [4]). The court, sua sponte, dismissed defendant’s first counterclaim, not, as plaintiffs contend, because it confused the counterclaim with the complaint, but because the counterclaim is identical to a claim of defendant in the pending action. Indeed, the court expressly ordered that this action proceed as to the counterclaims to the extent they are not precluded by the pending action.

In light of the foregoing, the motion court should not have addressed whether the complaint states a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz and Feinman, JJ.

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

The motion court correctly dismissed the complaint because “there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action” in Supreme Court (CPLR 3211 [a] [4]). The court, sua sponte, dismissed defendant’s first counterclaim, not, as plaintiffs contend, because it confused the counterclaim with the complaint, but because the counterclaim is identical to a claim of defendant in the pending action. Indeed, the court expressly ordered that this action proceed as to the counterclaims to the extent they are not precluded by the pending action.

In light of the foregoing, the motion court should not have addressed whether the complaint states a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 557, 979 N.Y.2d 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-16-madison-square-housing-corp-nyappdiv-2014.