Klebanow v. Carrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klebanow v. Carrington

24 A.D.2d 432, 260 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3921

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

DecidedJune 17, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 432 (Klebanow v. Carrington) 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

Klebanow v. Carrington, 24 A.D.2d 432, 260 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered October 30, 1964 denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent. The motion to dismiss this complaint was made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7). Affidavits were submitted by both sides. While the court, in passing on this motion, could have treated it as one for summary judgment (CPLR 3211, subd. [c]) there is nothing in this record which enables us to determine whether the court did choose to treat it as such. And, indeed, the appellant’s notice of appeal states that appeal is taken from the order of “ October 30, 1964 denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint against him for insufficiency”. Accordingly, we review this order on the basis that the underlying motion was addressed solely to the sufficiency of the complaint and that it was so treated by Special Term. Therefore, we need not consider what result would in fact obtain had this been a motion for summary judgment. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order entered October 30, 1964 denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent. The motion to dismiss this complaint was made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7). Affidavits were submitted by both sides. While the court, in passing on this motion, could have treated it as one for summary judgment (CPLR 3211, subd. [c]) there is nothing in this record which enables us to determine whether the court did choose to treat it as such. And, indeed, the appellant’s notice of appeal states that appeal is taken from the order of “ October 30, 1964 denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint against him for insufficiency”. Accordingly, we review this order on the basis that the underlying motion was addressed solely to the sufficiency of the complaint and that it was so treated by Special Term. Therefore, we need not consider what result would in fact obtain had this been a motion for summary judgment. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 432, 260 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klebanow-v-carrington-nyappdiv-1965.