Sperber v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sperber v. Schwartz

166 A.D.2d 573, 560 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12706

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 573 (Sperber v. Schwartz) 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

Sperber v. Schwartz, 166 A.D.2d 573, 560 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding by the petitioner Kalman Kenneth Sperber, temporary administrator of the estate of the decedent Mindy Sue Schwartz, inter alia, to recover damages for the decedent’s wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, and to obtain equitable distribution of the marital property of the decedent and Samuel R. Schwartz, the decedent’s former husband, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated March 9, 1989, which, in effect, upon renewal, granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was to dismiss the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Based upon the record before this court, the Surrogate properly dismissed the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding by the petitioner Kalman Kenneth Sperber, temporary administrator of the estate of the decedent Mindy Sue Schwartz, inter alia, to recover damages for the decedent’s wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, and to obtain equitable distribution of the marital property of the decedent and Samuel R. Schwartz, the decedent’s former husband, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated March 9, 1989, which, in effect, upon renewal, granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was to dismiss the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Based upon the record before this court, the Surrogate properly dismissed the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 573, 560 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sperber-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1990.