From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pustilnik v. Pustilnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1965
24 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Opinion

November 1, 1965


In a separation action, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 7, 1965, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after the entry of the order hereon. The complaint in this separation action fails to specify the "time and place of each act complained of" (CPLR 3016, subd. [c]). Amplification by bill of particulars, as suggested by Special Term, is not a satisfactory alternative if the statute is to retain its effectiveness. (See Kurcz v. Kurcz, 13 A.D.2d 954; Rizzi v. Rizzi, 279 App. Div. 676.) Beldock, P.J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pustilnik v. Pustilnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 1, 1965
24 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
Case details for

Pustilnik v. Pustilnik

Case Details

Full title:JENNIE PUSTILNIK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH PUSTILNIK, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 1, 1965

Citations

24 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)

Citing Cases

Tabib v. Tabib

However, notwithstanding that the plaintiff pleaded in general terms a continuous course of conduct which, if…

Sullivan v. Sullivan

The deficiency in pleading the cruelty cause of action cannot be overlooked nor salvaged by a bill of…