Smith v. Taitz, Bernard & Esteve

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Taitz, Bernard & Esteve

245 A.D.2d 283, 666 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12055

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 283 (Smith v. Taitz, Bernard & Esteve) 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

Smith v. Taitz, Bernard & Esteve, 245 A.D.2d 283, 666 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from collecting a judgment entered against the plaintiff in an action entitled Mindling v Smith, pending in the District Court, Suffolk County, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated June 14, 1996, as granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated July 11, 1996, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 11, 1996, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 14, 1996, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

[284]*284Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

Considering the plaintiff’s allegations to be true, and giving him the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see, Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633), we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions lack merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from collecting a judgment entered against the plaintiff in an action entitled Mindling v Smith, pending in the District Court, Suffolk County, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated June 14, 1996, as granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated July 11, 1996, which denied his motion for reargument.