Shaibani v. Soraya

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shaibani v. Soraya

71 A.D.3d 1121, 898 N.Y.S.2d 72

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

DecidedMarch 30, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 1121 (Shaibani v. Soraya) 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

Shaibani v. Soraya, 71 A.D.3d 1121, 898 N.Y.S.2d 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 140 (a) for a judgment declaring that a marriage is null and void, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (MacKenzie, J.), dated October 15, 2008, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the parties’ marriage is a nullity and directing the eviction of the defendant from a residence located at 39 Dunlop Road, in Huntington, and denied her cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the parties’ marriage is valid, or, in the alternative, that she is a putative spouse, and directing the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiffs motion, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the parties’ marriage is a nullity and directing the eviction of the defendant from the residence located at 39 Dunlop Road, in Huntington, and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

CPLR 3212 (a) provides that “[a]ny party may move for summary judgment in any action, after issue has been joined.” Joinder of issue requires the service of a complaint by the plaintiff and an answer or counterclaim by the defendant (see Chakir v Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y., 234 AD2d 577, 578 [1996]; Woodworth v Woodworth, 135 AD2d 1143 [1987]). Here, the plaintiff served the defendant with a summons with notice on or about January 15, 2008. There is no indication in the record that the plaintiff ever served the defendant with a complaint. Instead, the plaintiff moved, and the defendant cross-moved, for summary relief. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in considering the merits of the motion and cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment, since issue had not yet been joined as required by CPLR 3212 (see CPLR 3212 [a]; City of Rochester v Chiarella, 65 NY2d 92, 101 [1985]; Union Turnpike Assoc., LLC v Getty Realty Corp., 27 AD3d 725, 727 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 140 (a) for a judgment declaring that a marriage is null and void, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (MacKenzie, J.), dated October 15, 2008, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the parties’ marriage is a nullity and directing the eviction of the defendant from a residence located at 39 Dunlop Road, in Huntington, and denied her cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the parties’ marriage is valid, or, in the alternative, that she is a putative spouse, and directing the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiffs motion, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the parties’ marriage is a nullity and directing the eviction of the defendant from the residence located at 39 Dunlop Road, in Huntington, and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

CPLR 3212 (a) provides that “[a]ny party may move for summary judgment in any action, after issue has been joined.” Joinder of issue requires the service of a complaint by the plaintiff and an answer or counterclaim by the defendant (see Chakir v Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y., 234 AD2d 577, 578 [1996]; Woodworth v Woodworth, 135 AD2d 1143 [1987]). Here, the plaintiff served the defendant with a summons with notice on or about January 15, 2008. There is no indication in the record that the plaintiff ever served the defendant with a complaint. Instead, the plaintiff moved, and the defendant cross-moved, for summary relief. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in considering the merits of the motion and cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment, since issue had not yet been joined as required by CPLR 3212 (see CPLR 3212 [a]; City of Rochester v Chiarella, 65 NY2d 92, 101 [1985]; Union Turnpike Assoc., LLC v Getty Realty Corp., 27 AD3d 725, 727 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 1121, 898 N.Y.S.2d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaibani-v-soraya-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack