Shoulson v. Shoulson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shoulson v. Shoulson

203 A.D.2d 974, 612 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4383

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

DecidedApril 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 974 (Shoulson v. Shoulson) 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

Shoulson v. Shoulson, 203 A.D.2d 974, 612 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and cross motion granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: The court should have granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3016 (c) in this matrimonial action. Plaintiff failed to specify in the complaint "the time and place of each act complained of’ (CPLR 3016 [c]), and that failure cannot be cured by providing that information in a bill of particulars (see, Miglio v Miglio, 147 AD2d 460; Kapchan v Kapchan, 93 AD2d 880; Pustilnik v Pustilnik, 24 AD2d 868). The complaint is dismissed with leave to replead within 20 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Rigler, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and cross motion granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: The court should have granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3016 (c) in this matrimonial action. Plaintiff failed to specify in the complaint "the time and place of each act complained of’ (CPLR 3016 [c]), and that failure cannot be cured by providing that information in a bill of particulars (see, Miglio v Miglio, 147 AD2d 460; Kapchan v Kapchan, 93 AD2d 880; Pustilnik v Pustilnik, 24 AD2d 868). The complaint is dismissed with leave to replead within 20 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Rigler, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 974, 612 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shoulson-v-shoulson-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack