Raji v. Nejad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raji v. Nejad

256 A.D.2d 12, 680 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12784

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 12 (Raji v. Nejad) 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

Raji v. Nejad, 256 A.D.2d 12, 680 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered July 14, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, for failure to state a cause of action, so much of the complaint as seeks to [13]*13recover gifts that plaintiff gave defendant in contemplation of marriage, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The causes of action under Civil Rights Law § 80-b to recover gifts in contemplation of a marriage that did not occur were properly dismissed on the ground that plaintiff was married at the time the gifts were made, and it does not avail plaintiff that his divorce action was pending at the time (Lowe v Quinn, 27 NY2d 397). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered July 14, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, for failure to state a cause of action, so much of the complaint as seeks to [13]*13recover gifts that plaintiff gave defendant in contemplation of marriage, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The causes of action under Civil Rights Law § 80-b to recover gifts in contemplation of a marriage that did not occur were properly dismissed on the ground that plaintiff was married at the time the gifts were made, and it does not avail plaintiff that his divorce action was pending at the time (Lowe v Quinn, 27 NY2d 397). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 12, 680 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raji-v-nejad-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack