Kleila v. Kleila

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kleila v. Kleila

19 A.D.2d 828, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3164

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 828 (Kleila v. Kleila) 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

Kleila v. Kleila, 19 A.D.2d 828, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action seeking, in substance, a decree that plaintiff is the owner of one half of the fee of certain premises, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 17, 1963 and entered in Queens County on April 19, 1963, which denied their motion: (a) to dismiss the amended complaint upon the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; or (b), in the alternative, to strike out certain paragraphs of said amended complaint upon the ground that the allegations are irrelevant and prejudicial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (cf. Muller v. Sobol, 277 App. Div. 884, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 301 N. Y. 815; Pagano v. Pagano, 2 A D 2d 756, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 2 3ST Y 2d 708; Zirn v. Bradley, 269 App, Div. 961). Defendant’s time to answer the amended complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

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

In an action seeking, in substance, a decree that plaintiff is the owner of one half of the fee of certain premises, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 17, 1963 and entered in Queens County on April 19, 1963, which denied their motion: (a) to dismiss the amended complaint upon the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; or (b), in the alternative, to strike out certain paragraphs of said amended complaint upon the ground that the allegations are irrelevant and prejudicial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (cf. Muller v. Sobol, 277 App. Div. 884, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 301 N. Y. 815; Pagano v. Pagano, 2 A D 2d 756, mot. for iv. to opp. den. 2 3ST Y 2d 708; Zirn v. Bradley, 269 App, Div. 961). Defendant’s time to answer the amended complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 828, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleila-v-kleila-nyappdiv-1963.