Weinstock v. Cleary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinstock v. Cleary

255 A.D.2d 508, 680 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12699

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 23, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the [509]*509plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated July 10, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. The claims asserted in the complaint were premised upon the purported interest of the plaintiff Israel Weinstock in two parcels of real property. However, while this action was pending, judgments were rendered in separate actions to the effect that Weinstock has no interest in these properties (see, Weinstock v Handler, 244 AD2d 273; Walker v Weinstock, 173 Misc 2d 1, affd [case No. 44] 255 AD2d 508 [decided herewith]). Consequently, the plaintiffs have no standing to maintain this action.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the [509]*509plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated July 10, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. The claims asserted in the complaint were premised upon the purported interest of the plaintiff Israel Weinstock in two parcels of real property. However, while this action was pending, judgments were rendered in separate actions to the effect that Weinstock has no interest in these properties (see, Weinstock v Handler, 244 AD2d 273; Walker v Weinstock, 173 Misc 2d 1, affd [case No. 44] 255 AD2d 508 [decided herewith]). Consequently, the plaintiffs have no standing to maintain this action.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Weinstock v. Cleary, 255 A.D.2d 508, 680 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

255 A.D.2d 508 (Weinstock v. Cleary) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related