From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sibersky v. New York City

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 30, 2000
270 A.D.2d 209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Summary

In Sibersky, the petition which was dismissed consisted of seven pages of single spaced, unnumbered paragraphs, "the import of which is unascertainable."

Summary of this case from Clement-Davies v. Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

Opinion

March 30, 2000.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered August 14, 1998, which, in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioner's motion to waive the four-month Statute of Limitations and, sua sponte, dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Pro Se, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Helen P. Brown, for Respondents-Respondents.

TOM, J.P., ELLERIN, WALLACH, RUBIN, SAXE, JJ.


A review of the petition and amended petition discloses a complete failure to follow the dictates of either CPLR 3013 or 3014. The amended petition consists of seven pages of single-spaced, unnumbered paragraphs, the import of which is unascertainable. Pleadings that are not particular enough to provide the court and the parties with notice of the transaction or occurrences to be proved must be dismissed (Travelers Ins. Co. v. Ferco, Inc., 122 A.D.2d 718). Moreover, the action is time barred pursuant to CPLR 217.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Sibersky v. New York City

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 30, 2000
270 A.D.2d 209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

In Sibersky, the petition which was dismissed consisted of seven pages of single spaced, unnumbered paragraphs, "the import of which is unascertainable."

Summary of this case from Clement-Davies v. Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

In Sibersky v New York City (270 AD2d 209 [1d Dept 2000], the Court dismissed an amended petition for its "complete failure to follow the dictates of CPLR 3013 or 3014."

Summary of this case from Strunk v. New York State Bd. of Elections

In Sibersky v New York City (270 AD2d 209 [1d Dept 2000], the Court dismissed an amended petition for its "complete failure to follow the dictates of CPLR 3013 or 3014."

Summary of this case from Campbell v. Barclays Bank PLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 51417(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/2/2009)

In Sibersky v New York City (270 AD2d 209 [1d Dept 2000], the Court dismissed an amended petition for its "complete failure to follow the dictates of CPLR 3013 or 3014."

Summary of this case from Campbell v. Barclays Bank PLC
Case details for

Sibersky v. New York City

Case Details

Full title:Alexander Sibersky, Petitioner-Appellant, v. New York City, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 30, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
706 N.Y.S.2d 323

Citing Cases

Wilens v. Unique Opportunity U.S.

In this regard, statements in a pleading must be "sufficiently particular to give the court and parties…

Strunk v. New York State Bd. of Elections

Each paragraph shall contain, as far as practicable, a single allegation . . . Separate causes of action or…