Haller v. Lopane

305 A.D.2d 370, 757 N.Y.S.2d 899
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 5, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 370 (Haller v. Lopane) 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
Haller v. Lopane, 305 A.D.2d 370, 757 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for fraud, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated August 1, 2002, which denied their motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), based on another action pending between the same parties seeking payment of a promissory note and recovery of amounts allegedly improperly distributed to the defendant Anthony Lopane as administrator of his wife’s estate, which should have been paid to the plaintiff as a result of the debt reflected in the note. The instant action seeks to recover damages for fraud, alleging, inter alia, that the defendant Anthony Lopane and his wife had presented the plaintiff with a forged note, never intending to repay the debt. The court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and we affirm.

CPLR 3211 (a) (4) vests a court with broad discretion in considering whether to dismiss an action on the ground that another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action (see Whitney v Whitney, 57 NY2d 731 [1982]). Here, each action is based on a separate theory of recovery. Thus, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss on this ground.

Furthermore, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the instant action is timely (see CPLR 203 [g]; 213 [8]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Luciano, J.P., Adams, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
2025 NY Slip Op 04577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Brennan v. MacDonald
2025 NY Slip Op 03994 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Rice-Tamsen v. Tamsen
2023 NY Slip Op 01110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Jadron v. 10 Leonard Street, LLC
124 A.D.3d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Kilkenny v. Law Office of Cushner & Garvey, LLP
76 A.D.2d 512 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Lezell v. Forde
26 Misc. 3d 435 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)
Berry v. Rampersad
21 Misc. 3d 851 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Nakazawa v. Horowitz
50 A.D.3d 985 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Wronka v. GEM Community Management
49 A.D.3d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Chernow v. Chernow
39 A.D.3d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Plummer v. Plummer
25 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Ferdinand v. Crecca & Blair
5 A.D.3d 538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Crystal House Manor, Inc. v. Totura
5 A.D.3d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Hebrew Institute for Deaf & Exceptional Children v. Board of Education
309 A.D.2d 783 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
305 A.D.2d 370, 757 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haller-v-lopane-nyappdiv-2003.