Kallen v. Baron

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kallen v. Baron

15 Misc. 3d 68

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 28, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Misc. 3d 68 (Kallen v. Baron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kallen v. Baron, 15 Misc. 3d 68 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinions

[69]*69OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, entered on or about May 18, 2006, affirmed, without costs.

We find no abuse of discretion in the grant of plaintiffs cross motion for leave to discontinue this action without prejudice. Inasmuch as the sole remaining basis of defendant’s pending summary judgment motion for dismissal is plaintiffs failure to comply with the notice provision of 22 NYCRR former 136.5, and considering that any dismissal on this ground would be without prejudice to the commencement of a new action upon compliance with the court rule (see Paikin v Tsirelman, 266 AD2d 136 [1999]), dismissal of the action with prejudice is unwarranted. We note that defendant no longer disputes that plaintiff filed the retainer agreement together with the statement of net worth (22 NYCRR 1400.3) and released the file in the matrimonial action to defendant.

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

[69]*69OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, entered on or about May 18, 2006, affirmed, without costs.

We find no abuse of discretion in the grant of plaintiffs cross motion for leave to discontinue this action without prejudice. Inasmuch as the sole remaining basis of defendant’s pending summary judgment motion for dismissal is plaintiffs failure to comply with the notice provision of 22 NYCRR former 136.5, and considering that any dismissal on this ground would be without prejudice to the commencement of a new action upon compliance with the court rule (see Paikin v Tsirelman, 266 AD2d 136 [1999]), dismissal of the action with prejudice is unwarranted. We note that defendant no longer disputes that plaintiff filed the retainer agreement together with the statement of net worth (22 NYCRR 1400.3) and released the file in the matrimonial action to defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Misc. 3d 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kallen-v-baron-nyappterm-2007.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack