Safena v. Giuliano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Safena v. Giuliano

53 A.D.3d 650, 860 N.Y.S.2d 920

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

DecidedJuly 29, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 A.D.3d 650 (Safena v. Giuliano) 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

Safena v. Giuliano, 53 A.D.3d 650, 860 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to compel the release of money from an escrow account, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J), dated September 15, 2005, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the complaint, with leave to renew after joinder of necessary parties.

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

The Supreme Court, which correctly concluded that certain nonparties were necessary parties to the action (see CFLR 1001 [a]; cf. Matter of Lezette v Board of Educ., Hudson City School Dist., 35 NY2d 272, 282 [1974]), properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, with leave to renew upon the nonparties’ joinder (see Salomon Bros. Realty Corp. v Alvarez, 22 AD3d 482 [2005]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is beyond the scope of our review (see CFLR 5515 [1]; Cardinal Holdings v Chandre Corp., 302 AD2d 550, 551 [2003]). Fisher, J.P., Lifson, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to compel the release of money from an escrow account, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J), dated September 15, 2005, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the complaint, with leave to renew after joinder of necessary parties.

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

The Supreme Court, which correctly concluded that certain nonparties were necessary parties to the action (see CFLR 1001 [a]; cf. Matter of Lezette v Board of Educ., Hudson City School Dist., 35 NY2d 272, 282 [1974]), properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, with leave to renew upon the nonparties’ joinder (see Salomon Bros. Realty Corp. v Alvarez, 22 AD3d 482 [2005]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is beyond the scope of our review (see CFLR 5515 [1]; Cardinal Holdings v Chandre Corp., 302 AD2d 550, 551 [2003]). Fisher, J.P., Lifson, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.3d 650, 860 N.Y.S.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safena-v-giuliano-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack