Thomas v. Chamberlain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Chamberlain

115 A.D.2d 999, 497 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55393

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 115 A.D.2d 999 (Thomas v. Chamberlain) 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

Thomas v. Chamberlain, 115 A.D.2d 999, 497 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Assertion of unfounded allegations in a pleading, even if made for improper purposes, does not provide a basis for [1000]*1000liability under the statute (see, Goldner v Sullivan, Gough, Skipworth, Summers & Smith, 105 AD2d 1149; Schierloh v Kelly, 253 App Div 373; cf. Matter of Tuttle, 81 AD2d 248; Matter of Scuccimarra, 69 AD2d 157, lv denied 48 NY2d 603). Plaintiffs’ other causes of action were properly dismissed. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Davis, J.—dismiss cause of action.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Assertion of unfounded allegations in a pleading, even if made for improper purposes, does not provide a basis for [1000]*1000liability under the statute (see, Goldner v Sullivan, Gough, Skipworth, Summers & Smith, 105 AD2d 1149; Schierloh v Kelly, 253 App Div 373; cf. Matter of Tuttle, 81 AD2d 248; Matter of Scuccimarra, 69 AD2d 157, lv denied 48 NY2d 603). Plaintiffs’ other causes of action were properly dismissed. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Davis, J.—dismiss cause of action.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 999, 497 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-chamberlain-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack