Ronas v. Wildman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ronas v. Wildman

45 A.D.2d 1047, 358 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313

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

DecidedJuly 29, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.2d 1047 (Ronas v. Wildman) 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

Ronas v. Wildman, 45 A.D.2d 1047, 358 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover moneys allegedly removed unlawfully from a pension plan fund, plaintiffs, trustees of said fund, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 31, 1974, which denied their motion (1) for summary judgment on the first cause of action; (2) for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action; and (3) to dismiss defendant’s counterclaims. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by striking therefrom the third decretal paragraph, and, directing that defendant’s counterclaims be dismissed. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as ■ appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, defendant’s claim that he was an employee-beneficiary of the fund at the time that the plan was terminated and wa^, therefore, entitled to the moneys at issue, raises questions of fact to be resolved at trial. Defendant’s counterclaims, however, were improperly interposed (CPLR 3019, subd., [c]). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover moneys allegedly removed unlawfully from a pension plan fund, plaintiffs, trustees of said fund, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 31, 1974, which denied their motion (1) for summary judgment on the first cause of action; (2) for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action; and (3) to dismiss defendant’s counterclaims. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by striking therefrom the third decretal paragraph, and, directing that defendant’s counterclaims be dismissed. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as ■ appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, defendant’s claim that he was an employee-beneficiary of the fund at the time that the plan was terminated and wa^, therefore, entitled to the moneys at issue, raises questions of fact to be resolved at trial. Defendant’s counterclaims, however, were improperly interposed (CPLR 3019, subd., [c]). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 1047, 358 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronas-v-wildman-nyappdiv-1974.