Jones v. Buttarazzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Buttarazzi

204 A.D.2d 1018, 614 N.Y.S.2d 957

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

DecidedMay 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 1018 (Jones v. Buttarazzi) 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

Jones v. Buttarazzi, 204 A.D.2d 1018, 614 N.Y.S.2d 957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs properly brought a plenary action alleging extrinsic fraud with respect to a confession of judgment entered in Rochester City Court (see, Tamimi v Tamimi, 38 AD2d 197; see also, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5015.-8). The action was properly brought in Supreme Court because plaintiffs’ demand for damages exceeds the jurisdiction of City Court. Plaintiffs are not entitled, however, to vacatur of the judgment in that action; vacatur must be sought in the court in which the judgment was rendered (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). [1019]*1019Thus, we grant in part defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and dismiss that portion of the demand for relief seeking vacatur. The order otherwise is affirmed. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Kehoe, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, 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: Plaintiffs properly brought a plenary action alleging extrinsic fraud with respect to a confession of judgment entered in Rochester City Court (see, Tamimi v Tamimi, 38 AD2d 197; see also, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5015.-8). The action was properly brought in Supreme Court because plaintiffs’ demand for damages exceeds the jurisdiction of City Court. Plaintiffs are not entitled, however, to vacatur of the judgment in that action; vacatur must be sought in the court in which the judgment was rendered (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). [1019]*1019Thus, we grant in part defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and dismiss that portion of the demand for relief seeking vacatur. The order otherwise is affirmed. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Kehoe, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 1018, 614 N.Y.S.2d 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-buttarazzi-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack