Ort v. Ort
| Decision Date | 30 November 2010 |
| Citation | 911 N.Y.S.2d 666,78 A.D.3d 1138 |
| Parties | Amelia Manya Emily ORT, respondent, v. Philip ORT, et al., defendants, Jeffrey Martin, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Arnold J. Ludwig, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Moskowitz, Book & Walsh, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Avraham C. Moskowitz and M. Todd Parker of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief, the defendant Jeffrey Martin appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated January 14, 2009, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Jeffrey Martin for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is granted.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the appellant is entitled to summary judgment. The complaint in this action seeks to collaterally attack a certain judgment obtained by the appellant against the defendant Abraham J. Ort on the ground of intrinsic fraud, relief that can only be obtained in the action in which the judgment was entered ( see 73 N.Y. Jur. 2d., Judgments § 273; see also CPLR 5015[a][3]; Third Preliminary Report of Advisory Committee on Practice and Procedure [1959 N.Y. Leg. Doc. No. 17, at 204]; Bank of New York v. Stradford, 55 A.D.3d 765, 869 N.Y.S.2d 554). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him for failure to state a cause of action, an affirmative defense that he asserted in his answer ( see Light v. Light, 64 A.D.3d 633, 634, 883 N.Y.S.2d 553).
In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taggart v. Costabile
...53 A.D.3d 594, 595, 862 N.Y.S.2d 541 ; see also Weiss v. Michael Taylor, Ltd., 95 A.D.3d 1305, 1306, 944 N.Y.S.2d 903 ; Ort v. Ort, 78 A.D.3d 1138, 1138, 911 N.Y.S.2d 666 ). Since the plaintiffs failed to rebut this prima facie showing, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of t......
- Rakha v. Pinnacle Bus Servs.
-
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Gibson
...110 A.D.3d 17, 970 N.Y.S.2d 229; Rakha v. Pinnacle Bus Servs., 98 A.D.3d at 658, 949 N.Y.S.2d 769; Mitskevitch v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d at 1138, 911 N.Y.S.2d 662). Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025 [976 ......
-
Campbell v. Bank of Am., N.A.
...the judgment or order may entertain a motion to vacate it" ( Hrouda v. Winne, 77 A.D.2d 62, 64, 432 N.Y.S.2d 643 ; see Ort v. Ort, 78 A.D.3d 1138, 911 N.Y.S.2d 666 ; Matter of New York Diet Drug Litig., 47 A.D.3d 586, 850 N.Y.S.2d 408 ; Brenner v. Arterial Plaza, 29 A.D.2d 815, 816, 287 N.Y......