From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glasser v. Kashinsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1995
216 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 26, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the causes of actions set forth in the complaint were sufficiently particular to give the parties notice of the transactions or occurrences intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action (see, CPLR 3103). Moreover, the complaint is pleaded in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of CPLR 3016 (b) (see, Moore Adv. Agency v. Shapiro, 124 A.D.2d 696). We further conclude that under the facts of this case, the plaintiff's cause of action did not accrue until 1993, when the plaintiff obtained a judgment and execution thereof returned unsatisfied (see, Buttles v. Smith, 281 N.Y. 226). Accordingly, the action was not time-barred pursuant to CPLR 213.

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Glasser v. Kashinsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1995
216 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Glasser v. Kashinsky

Case Details

Full title:HARRIS GLASSER, Respondent, v. RICHARD KASHINSKY, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 26, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 582