Legal Opinion
Kinlay v. Henley
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 2, 2008PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*220The individual plaintiff is the owner and chief executive officer of the corporate plaintiff. Two months after plaintiffs’ attorney was relieved by the court, defendants moved to dismiss the claims of the corporation pursuant to CPLR 321 (a), which requires a corporation to appear by an attorney. The corporation then assigned all of its claims in the action to the individual plaintiff, admittedly to evade CPLR 321 (a), a perfectly legitimate tactic (Kamp v In Sportswear, 39 AD2d 869 [1972], revg on dissenting op at App Term 70 Misc 2d 898 [1972]; see also Medical Facilities v Pryke, 172 AD2d…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Traktman v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Kamp v. In Sportswear, Inc.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1972
- Medical Facilities, Inc. v. PrykeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Kamp v. In Sportswear Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hidden Pond Schodack, LLC v. Hidden Pond Homes, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Matter of Nieblas-Love v. New York City Hous. Auth.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- Matter of Nieblas-Love v. New York City Hous. Auth.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- Staubs v. State of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2026
- Wah Win Group Corp. v. 979 Second Ave. LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2026
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.