Plaza at Patterson, LLC v. Clover Lake Holdings, Inc.

51 A.D.3d 931, 856 N.Y.S.2d 877
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 20, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 931 (Plaza at Patterson, LLC v. Clover Lake Holdings, Inc.) 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
Plaza at Patterson, LLC v. Clover Lake Holdings, Inc., 51 A.D.3d 931, 856 N.Y.S.2d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

[932]*932In a proceeding for judicial dissolution of a corporation pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 702, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered July 2, 2007, which denied their motion to strike allegedly scandalous and prejudicial matter from paragraphs 70, 71, 104 through 110, and 115 of the respondents’ verified answer and counterclaims.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]; Mayer v 486 Assoc., Inc., 35 AD3d 404 [2006]; Landa v Dratch, 45 AD3d 646, 647 [2007]; Kinkela v Incorporated Vil. of Mineola, 306 AD2d 382 [2003]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the scandalous and prejudicial matter is stricken from paragraphs 70, 71, 104 through 110, and 115 of the respondents’ verified answer and counterclaims.

The respondents have incorporated in their verified answer and counterclaims references to collateral matters relative to the petitioners’ corporate principals that are unrelated to the instant litigation. These matters should be stricken from the respondents’ verified answer and counterclaims as both unnecessary to the viability of their counterclaims, and as prejudicial to the petitioners (see Soumayah v Minnelli, 41 AD3d 390, 393 [2007]; Van Caloen v Poglinco, 214 AD2d 555, 557 [1995]; JC Mfg. v NPI Elec., 178 AD2d 505, 506 [1991]; Wegman v Dairylea Coop., 50 AD2d 108, 111-112 [1975]; Schachter v Massachusetts Protective Assn., 30 AD2d 540 [1968]). Skelos, J.E, Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pisula v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y.
2021 NY Slip Op 06872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Irving v. Four Seasons Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
121 A.D.3d 1046 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Kinzer v. Bederman
59 A.D.3d 496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.3d 931, 856 N.Y.S.2d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plaza-at-patterson-llc-v-clover-lake-holdings-inc-nyappdiv-2008.