Friedman v. CYL Cemetery, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 January 2011 |
| Citation | 914 N.Y.S.2d 305,80 A.D.3d 556 |
| Parties | Wilson FRIEDMAN, et al., appellants, v. CYL CEMETERY, INC., et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David B. Hamm and Linda M. Brown of counsel), for appellants.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for respondents CYL Cemetery, Inc., Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Chevre Kadishe of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Joseph Weiss, David Markowitz, Chaim Gross, Joel Kaufman, Elias Horowitz, and Shlomo Wertzberger.
Jacobowitz and Gubits, LLP, Walden, N.Y. (Donald G. Nichol of counsel), for respondent Moses Witriol.
RANDALL T. ENG, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
In a putative class action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendants from directly or indirectly interfering with the plaintiffs' rights under certain certificates issued by the Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., regarding burial in the Kiryas Joel Cemetery, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated May 26,2009, which granted (a) that branch of the cross motion of the defendants CYL Cemetery, Inc., Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., Chevre Kadishe D'Satmar, a division of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar of Kiryas Joel, Inc., Central Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., Rabbi Ezriel Gluck, Joseph Weiss, David Markowitz, Chaim Eliezer Gross, Joel Kaufman, David Ekstein, Elias Horowitz, and Shlomo Wertzberger, which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and (b) the separate cross motion of the defendant Moses Witriol, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted him for failure to state a cause of action, and is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The parties are involved in an ongoing dispute over which of two opposing factions is authorized to act on behalf of the Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. (hereinafter the Congregation). The complaint in this action presents questions regarding the enforcement of certain certificates purportedly issued by the Congregation, regarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fenner v. County of Nassau
...A.D.3d 648, 649, 789 N.Y.S.2d 507; Bokhari v. Home Depot U.S.A., 4 A.D.3d 381, 382, 771 N.Y.S.2d 395). In light of the plaintiff's failure80 A.D.3d 556to do either, the complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 ( see Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 A.D.3d 783, 8......
-
Stallone v. Richard
...of law office failure proffered by the plaintiff did not rise to the level of a reasonable excuse ( see Fenner v. County of Nassau, 80 A.D.3d at 556, 914 N.Y.S.2d 653; Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 A.D.3d 903, 905, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357; Piton v. Cribb, 38 A.D.3d 741, 742, ......
- Duranti v. Dream Works Constr., Inc.
-
Rodman v. Ardsley Radiology, P.C.
...may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126" ( Holland v. W.M. Realty Mgt., Inc., 64 A.D.3d 627, 629, 883 N.Y.S.2d 555). The Supreme Court has914 N.Y.S.2d 305broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction ( see Shayovich v. 800 Ocean Parkway Apt., Corp., 77 A.D.3d 814, 909 N.Y.S.2d 749; Zay......