Pokoik v. Silsdorf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pokoik v. Silsdorf

63 A.D.2d 597, 404 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11436

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

DecidedMay 11, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.2d 597 (Pokoik v. Silsdorf) 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

Pokoik v. Silsdorf, 63 A.D.2d 597, 404 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 27, 1977, granting defendant Silsdorfs motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) but granting plaintiff leave to replead within 30 days of entry of the order, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable to respondent by appellant. The only issue on this appeal is the granting by Special Term of leave to replead. In the circumstances of this case, we do not believe that there is any need to interfere with Special Term’s exercise of discretion. Inasmuch as there is no cross appeal by plaintiff on the dismissal, we do not pass upon the validity of the complaint. Concur—Birns, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Lane and Sandler, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 27, 1977, granting defendant Silsdorfs motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) but granting plaintiff leave to replead within 30 days of entry of the order, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable to respondent by appellant. The only issue on this appeal is the granting by Special Term of leave to replead. In the circumstances of this case, we do not believe that there is any need to interfere with Special Term’s exercise of discretion. Inasmuch as there is no cross appeal by plaintiff on the dismissal, we do not pass upon the validity of the complaint. Concur—Birns, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Lane and Sandler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 597, 404 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pokoik-v-silsdorf-nyappdiv-1978.