Toker v. Pollak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toker v. Pollak

73 A.D.2d 910, 424 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9815

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 910 (Toker v. Pollak) 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

Toker v. Pollak, 73 A.D.2d 910, 424 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 2, 1979, dismissing defendant-appellant’s motion to strike plaintiffs interrogatories and for a protective order, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and disbursements, and the motion is remanded for disposition on the merits. In this defamation action brought by plaintiff attorney, pro se, wherein it is alleged he was denied a judicial office because of statements made by defendant-appellant, Special Term incorrectly determined that service of these motion papers was invalid. The court solely considered plaintiff’s involvement in this action as a party and failed to allow for his dual role as attorney. Accordingly, service under these circumstances was proper (CPLR 2103, subd [b], par 3). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Ross and Markewich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 2, 1979, dismissing defendant-appellant’s motion to strike plaintiffs interrogatories and for a protective order, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and disbursements, and the motion is remanded for disposition on the merits. In this defamation action brought by plaintiff attorney, pro se, wherein it is alleged he was denied a judicial office because of statements made by defendant-appellant, Special Term incorrectly determined that service of these motion papers was invalid. The court solely considered plaintiff’s involvement in this action as a party and failed to allow for his dual role as attorney. Accordingly, service under these circumstances was proper (CPLR 2103, subd [b], par 3). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Ross and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 910, 424 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toker-v-pollak-nyappdiv-1980.