James v. Shave

New York Court of Appeals

James v. Shave

465 N.E.2d 39, 62 N.Y.2d 712, 476 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4311

New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 3, 1984·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

[714] OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs. The Appellate Division properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant (see 97 AD2d 927). Although a plenary action may lie in some rare instances to set aside a prior judgment (see Oppenheimer v Westcott, 47 NY2d 595, 602-603; 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 5015.13, pp 50-244, 50-245), plaintiffs’ pleadings set forth no basis for such relief in this case. Moreover, a motion to vacate the prior judgment, if available at all, would be made pursuant to CPLR 5015, not CPLR 2221.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye.

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

[714] OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs. The Appellate Division properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant (see 97 AD2d 927). Although a plenary action may lie in some rare instances to set aside a prior judgment (see Oppenheimer v Westcott, 47 NY2d 595, 602-603; 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 5015.13, pp 50-244, 50-245), plaintiffs’ pleadings set forth no basis for such relief in this case. Moreover, a motion to vacate the prior judgment, if available at all, would be made pursuant to CPLR 5015, not CPLR 2221.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye.

James v. Shave, 465 N.E.2d 39, 62 N.Y.2d 712, 476 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4311 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

465 N.E.2d 39 (James v. Shave) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related