Laverne v. Corning

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laverne v. Corning

24 A.D.2d 602, 262 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 602 (Laverne v. Corning) 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

Laverne v. Corning, 24 A.D.2d 602, 262 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 23,1964, which granted the defendants’ motion, made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7) and CPLR 3212, to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that the action had no merit, and which dismissed the complaint; and (2) from a judgment of said court, entered January 22, 1965 pursuant to said order, which dismissed the complaint and granted summary judgment to the defendants. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs (cf. Burt v. Smith, 181 N. Y. 1, 6, 7; Birdsall v. Smith, 158 Mich. 390; De Marco v. County of Nassau, 18 A D 2d 999; Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A D 2d 373, affd. 15 N Y 2d 831). (For companion appeals, see Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow v. Laverne Originals, 24 A D 2d 616; Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hallow v. Laverne, 24 A D 2d 615.) Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 23,1964, which granted the defendants’ motion, made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7) and CPLR 3212, to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that the action had no merit, and which dismissed the complaint; and (2) from a judgment of said court, entered January 22, 1965 pursuant to said order, which dismissed the complaint and granted summary judgment to the defendants. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs (cf. Burt v. Smith, 181 N. Y. 1, 6, 7; Birdsall v. Smith, 158 Mich. 390; De Marco v. County of Nassau, 18 A D 2d 999; Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A D 2d 373, affd. 15 N Y 2d 831). (For companion appeals, see Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow v. Laverne Originals, 24 A D 2d 616; Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hallow v. Laverne, 24 A D 2d 615.) Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 602, 262 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laverne-v-corning-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack