Melnitzky v. North Fork Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melnitzky v. North Fork Savings Bank

17 A.D.3d 170, 794 N.Y.S.2d 13, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3725

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

DecidedApril 12, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 170 (Melnitzky v. North Fork Savings Bank) 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

Melnitzky v. North Fork Savings Bank, 17 A.D.3d 170, 794 N.Y.S.2d 13, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered November 26, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[171]*171Plaintiff challenges defendant’s procedure in conducting inventory of several safe deposit boxes used by him to store what was previously determined to be marital property (Melnitzky v Melnitzky, 284 AD2d 240 [2001]). As we stated in Melnitzky v LoPreto (8 AD3d 4 [2004]) and most recently in Melnitzky v Besobrasow (14 AD3d 395 [2005]), any claims that were or could have been addressed in the matrimonial action regarding the inventory of the safe deposit boxes are barred, even if based on different theories or sought under a different remedy. Moreover, the claims for conversion and prima facie tort are time-barred (CPLR 214 [3], [4]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered November 26, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[171]*171Plaintiff challenges defendant’s procedure in conducting inventory of several safe deposit boxes used by him to store what was previously determined to be marital property (Melnitzky v Melnitzky, 284 AD2d 240 [2001]). As we stated in Melnitzky v LoPreto (8 AD3d 4 [2004]) and most recently in Melnitzky v Besobrasow (14 AD3d 395 [2005]), any claims that were or could have been addressed in the matrimonial action regarding the inventory of the safe deposit boxes are barred, even if based on different theories or sought under a different remedy. Moreover, the claims for conversion and prima facie tort are time-barred (CPLR 214 [3], [4]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 170, 794 N.Y.S.2d 13, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melnitzky-v-north-fork-savings-bank-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack