Hack v. Wagner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hack v. Wagner

256 A.D.2d 1227, 684 N.Y.S.2d 453

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1227 (Hack v. Wagner) 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

Hack v. Wagner, 256 A.D.2d 1227, 684 N.Y.S.2d 453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: In view of our decision in Hack v City of Syracuse (256 AD2d 1226 [decided herewith]), we modify the order by granting in part plaintiffs motion and striking the second affirmative defense that the action is barred by failure to comply with General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i, denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint. That part of plaintiffs motion seeking to strike the fifth affirmative defense that the complaint is procedurally defective for failure to comply with CPLR 3017 (c) was properly denied. We do not reach the remainder of plaintiffs motion seeking to strike the eighth affirmative defense that plaintiff lacks in personam jurisdiction over defendant because plaintiff did not brief that issue (see, Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.— Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: In view of our decision in Hack v City of Syracuse (256 AD2d 1226 [decided herewith]), we modify the order by granting in part plaintiffs motion and striking the second affirmative defense that the action is barred by failure to comply with General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i, denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint. That part of plaintiffs motion seeking to strike the fifth affirmative defense that the complaint is procedurally defective for failure to comply with CPLR 3017 (c) was properly denied. We do not reach the remainder of plaintiffs motion seeking to strike the eighth affirmative defense that plaintiff lacks in personam jurisdiction over defendant because plaintiff did not brief that issue (see, Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.— Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1227, 684 N.Y.S.2d 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hack-v-wagner-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack