Sibersky v. New York City

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sibersky v. New York City

270 A.D.2d 209, 706 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3312

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

DecidedMarch 30, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 209 (Sibersky v. New York City) 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

Sibersky v. New York City, 270 A.D.2d 209, 706 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered August 14, 1998, which, in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioner’s motion to waive the four-month Statute of Limitations and, sua sponte, dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A review of the petition and amended petition discloses a complete failure to follow the dictates of either CPLR 3013 or 3014. The amended petition consists of seven pages of single-spaced, unnumbered paragraphs, the import of which is unascertainable. Pleadings that are not particular enough to provide the court and the parties with notice of the transaction or occurrences to be proved must be dismissed (Travelers Ins. Co. v Ferco, Inc., 122 AD2d 718). Moreover, the action is time barred pursuant to CPLR 217. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered August 14, 1998, which, in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioner’s motion to waive the four-month Statute of Limitations and, sua sponte, dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A review of the petition and amended petition discloses a complete failure to follow the dictates of either CPLR 3013 or 3014. The amended petition consists of seven pages of single-spaced, unnumbered paragraphs, the import of which is unascertainable. Pleadings that are not particular enough to provide the court and the parties with notice of the transaction or occurrences to be proved must be dismissed (Travelers Ins. Co. v Ferco, Inc., 122 AD2d 718). Moreover, the action is time barred pursuant to CPLR 217. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 209, 706 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sibersky-v-new-york-city-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack