Juron v. Minzner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Juron v. Minzner

261 A.D.2d 586, 690 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5669

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

DecidedMay 24, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 586 (Juron v. Minzner) 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

Juron v. Minzner, 261 A.D.2d 586, 690 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated January 29, 1998, which denied their motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The record demonstrates that there is an identity of issues and parties between this action and a corporate dissolution proceeding previously commenced in Westchester County. Moreover, the plaintiff, Albert A. Jurón, and the defendant Edward S. Minzner stipulated to have all issues regarding their respective financial interests in their former law firm resolved in the dissolution proceeding. Under these circumstances, any perceived inequity in the continued distribution of the assets of the former law firm must be raised and addressed in the context of the Westchester County proceeding. Therefore, the Supreme Court, Queens County, should have granted the [587]*587defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in this action. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated January 29, 1998, which denied their motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The record demonstrates that there is an identity of issues and parties between this action and a corporate dissolution proceeding previously commenced in Westchester County. Moreover, the plaintiff, Albert A. Jurón, and the defendant Edward S. Minzner stipulated to have all issues regarding their respective financial interests in their former law firm resolved in the dissolution proceeding. Under these circumstances, any perceived inequity in the continued distribution of the assets of the former law firm must be raised and addressed in the context of the Westchester County proceeding. Therefore, the Supreme Court, Queens County, should have granted the [587]*587defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in this action. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 586, 690 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juron-v-minzner-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack