Shaibani v. Soraya
Decision Date | 30 March 2010 |
Citation | 898 N.Y.S.2d 72,71 A.D.3d 1121 |
Parties | Ali Reza SHAIBANI, respondent, v. Kristin SORAYA, appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
71 A.D.3d 1121
Ali Reza SHAIBANI, respondent,
v.
Kristin SORAYA, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
March 30, 2010.
Courten & Villar, PLLC, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Dorothy A. Courten and Scott Felicetti of counsel), for appellant.
Reynolds, Caronia, Gianelli, Hagney & La Pinta, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (James F. Hagney of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, and ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.
In an action pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 140(a) for a judgment declaring that a marriage is null and void, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (MacKenzie, J.), dated October 15, 2008, which granted the plaintiff's motion, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the parties' marriage is a nullity and directing the eviction of the defendant from a residence located at 39 Dunlop Road, in Huntington, and denied her cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the parties' marriage is valid, or, in the alternative, that she is a putative spouse, and directing the equitable distribution of the parties' assets.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiff's motion, in effect, for summary judgment declaring that the parties' marriage is a nullity and directing the eviction of the defendant from the residence located at 39 Dunlop Road, in Huntington, and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
CPLR 3212(a) provides that "[a]ny party may move for summary judgment in any action, after issue has been joined." Joinder of issue requires the service of a complaint by the plaintiff and an answer or counterclaim by the defendant ( see Chakir v. Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y., 234 A.D.2d 577, 578, 651 N.Y.S.2d 622; Woodworth v. Woodworth, 135 A.D.2d 1143, 523 N.Y.S.2d 997). Here, the plaintiff served the defendant with a summons
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reyes v. Arco Wentworth Mgmt. Corp..
...determination ( see CPLR 3212[a]; City of Rochester v. Chiarella, 65 N.Y.2d 92, 101, 490 N.Y.S.2d 174, 479 N.E.2d 810; Shaibani v. Soraya, 71 A.D.3d 1121, 898 N.Y.S.2d 72). The defendants' remaining arguments either are without merit or have been rendered academic by our determination. Ther......
-
Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Campos
...2012]). Joinderof issue requires service of a complaint by the plaintiff and service of an answer or counterclaim by the defendant (Shaibani v Soraya, supra). motion was filed prior to issue being joined as to the Campos defendants and Lievano-Rivera; therefore, its application for summary ......
-
Schwartz v. Torrenzano
...such a motion against such a party (see Gaskin v. Harris, 98 A.D.3d 941, 950 N.Y.S.2d 751 [2d Dept.2012] ; Shaibani v. Soraya, 71 A.D.3d 1121, 898 N.Y.S.2d 72 [2d Dept.2010] ).Moreover, while this Court could consider defendant's motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, upon proper no......
- Singh v. City of N.Y.