Nixon v. Barrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nixon v. Barrow

239 A.D.2d 326, 657 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4608

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

DecidedMay 5, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 326 (Nixon v. Barrow) 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

Nixon v. Barrow, 239 A.D.2d 326, 657 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a deed, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated April 19, 1996, as granted the motion of the defendants Brenda G. Barrow, Cheryl L. Smith, Heather Mitchel, and United States Trust Company of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

• We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to join a necessary and indispensable party to this action (see, CPLR 1001; see also, Ahders v Ahders, 176 AD2d 230; McLaughlin v McLaughlin, 155 AD2d 418). Moreover, because the applicable Statute of Limitations has expired (see, Piedra v Vanover, 174 AD2d 191), the court properly dismissed the action against the respondents. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a deed, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated April 19, 1996, as granted the motion of the defendants Brenda G. Barrow, Cheryl L. Smith, Heather Mitchel, and United States Trust Company of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

• We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to join a necessary and indispensable party to this action (see, CPLR 1001; see also, Ahders v Ahders, 176 AD2d 230; McLaughlin v McLaughlin, 155 AD2d 418). Moreover, because the applicable Statute of Limitations has expired (see, Piedra v Vanover, 174 AD2d 191), the court properly dismissed the action against the respondents. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 326, 657 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nixon-v-barrow-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack