Talley v. Winfrey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Talley v. Winfrey

291 A.D.2d 276, 737 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1677

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 276 (Talley v. Winfrey) 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

Talley v. Winfrey, 291 A.D.2d 276, 737 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered January 11, 2001, which granted the motion of defendant King World Productions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously dismissed, without costs. .

Plaintiff states in his appellate submissions that he does not appeal from the motion court’s determination to dismiss his action as against defendant King World Productions. This being the case, there is nothing left to appeal from since the only determination made in the appealed order was to dismiss the action against King World. Although plaintiff maintains that the appealed order dismissed the action against all of the above-captioned defendants, this was plainly not the case. King World was the only defendant to appear in the action and, accordingly, the only defendant against whom the complaint could have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered January 11, 2001, which granted the motion of defendant King World Productions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously dismissed, without costs. .

Plaintiff states in his appellate submissions that he does not appeal from the motion court’s determination to dismiss his action as against defendant King World Productions. This being the case, there is nothing left to appeal from since the only determination made in the appealed order was to dismiss the action against King World. Although plaintiff maintains that the appealed order dismissed the action against all of the above-captioned defendants, this was plainly not the case. King World was the only defendant to appear in the action and, accordingly, the only defendant against whom the complaint could have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 276, 737 N.Y.S.2d 287, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talley-v-winfrey-nyappdiv-2002.