From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Casolaro v. Krupka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 19, 2001
281 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted February 21, 2001.

March 19, 2001.

In an action to compel the defendant to refer to the parties' child by the name listed in the child's birth certificate, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), dated May 30, 2000, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of laches.

Robert C. Agee, Bronxville, N.Y., for appellant.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint as barred by the doctrine of laches (cf., Githens v. Van Orden, 177 Misc.2d 918, affd 256 A.D.2d 1247).


Summaries of

Casolaro v. Krupka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 19, 2001
281 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Casolaro v. Krupka

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT A. CASOLARO, APPELLANT, v. KATHRYN KRUPKA, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Mar 19, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 799

Citing Cases

Nat'l Compressor Exch., Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co.

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint does not meet these pleading requirements. Accordingly, the court grants…

Diecidue v. Russo

Further, the defendant would be prejudiced in defending the action at this time by the loss of evidence…