Saubart v. Koster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saubart v. Koster

64 A.D.2d 996, 408 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12990

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 996 (Saubart v. Koster) 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

Saubart v. Koster, 64 A.D.2d 996, 408 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

[997]*997Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 24, 1977 in Delaware County, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint. Defendant’s moving papers did not establish that plaintiffs former action under the Lien Law had been resolved on the merits. Since it was not contended that the present contract action between the same parties was commenced beyond the ordinary period limited therefor, Special Term had no reason to consider the applicability of CPLR 205 (subd [a]) to the situation presented and correctly denied defendant’s motion (see Utica Sheet Metal Corp. v Myers-Laine Corp., 45 AD2d 116, 118). We have examined defendant’s remaining argument and find it to be without merit. Order affirmed, with costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

[997]*997Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 24, 1977 in Delaware County, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint. Defendant’s moving papers did not establish that plaintiffs former action under the Lien Law had been resolved on the merits. Since it was not contended that the present contract action between the same parties was commenced beyond the ordinary period limited therefor, Special Term had no reason to consider the applicability of CPLR 205 (subd [a]) to the situation presented and correctly denied defendant’s motion (see Utica Sheet Metal Corp. v Myers-Laine Corp., 45 AD2d 116, 118). We have examined defendant’s remaining argument and find it to be without merit. Order affirmed, with costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 996, 408 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saubart-v-koster-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack