Stempler v. Stempler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stempler v. Stempler

88 A.D.3d 574, 931 N.Y.2d 232

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

DecidedOctober 20, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.3d 574 (Stempler v. Stempler) 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

Stempler v. Stempler, 88 A.D.3d 574, 931 N.Y.2d 232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Stempler defendants’ (defendants) appeal from an order that declined to require a more definitive statement in plaintiffs amended complaint was not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [b] [2]). Defendants argued that the lengthy amended complaint was intended to harass, in that it was prolix, verbose, unnecessarily repetitious, and contained immaterial allegations. While the amended complaint arguably could have been more “plain and concise” in its terms, the causes of action were [575]*575properly asserted in consecutively numbered paragraphs, and a reading of the document belies defendants’ conclusory claim that the causes of action were unclear (see generally CPLR 3014). The amended complaint, as drafted, did not prejudice defendants in answering. Thus, there is no basis to find that the challenged pleading affected a substantial right that would warrant the taking of an appeal as of right (see e.g. Matter of Danzig, 96 AD2d 803, 805 [1983]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Román, JJ.

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

The Stempler defendants’ (defendants) appeal from an order that declined to require a more definitive statement in plaintiffs amended complaint was not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [b] [2]). Defendants argued that the lengthy amended complaint was intended to harass, in that it was prolix, verbose, unnecessarily repetitious, and contained immaterial allegations. While the amended complaint arguably could have been more “plain and concise” in its terms, the causes of action were [575]*575properly asserted in consecutively numbered paragraphs, and a reading of the document belies defendants’ conclusory claim that the causes of action were unclear (see generally CPLR 3014). The amended complaint, as drafted, did not prejudice defendants in answering. Thus, there is no basis to find that the challenged pleading affected a substantial right that would warrant the taking of an appeal as of right (see e.g. Matter of Danzig, 96 AD2d 803, 805 [1983]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 574, 931 N.Y.2d 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stempler-v-stempler-nyappdiv-2011.