Klam v. Klam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klam v. Klam

203 A.D.2d 428, 610 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4024

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

DecidedApril 18, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 428 (Klam v. Klam) 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

Klam v. Klam, 203 A.D.2d 428, 610 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated March 20, 1992, which denied her motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b).

[429]*429Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In view of the plaintiffs failure to submit an affidavit of merit containing evidentiary facts sufficient to establish a prima face case, it was error, as a matter of law, not to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) (see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated March 20, 1992, which denied her motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b).

[429]*429Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In view of the plaintiffs failure to submit an affidavit of merit containing evidentiary facts sufficient to establish a prima face case, it was error, as a matter of law, not to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) (see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 428, 610 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klam-v-klam-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack