From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kensington Gate Owners, Inc. v. Kalikow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 1984
99 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

January 16, 1984


In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraudulent representations, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), entered December 1, 1982, which denied their motion for class action certification. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. CPLR 902 provides that the plaintiff "shall move for an order" to determine whether an action is to be maintained as a class action, "[w]ithin sixty days after the time to serve a responsive pleading has expired for all persons named as defendants in an action brought as a class action". The motion for class action certification herein was not made until over four years had passed since joinder of issue. Under these circumstances, Special Term did not err in denying the motion for class action certification ( O'Hara v Del Bello, 47 N.Y.2d 363; Matter of Shook v Lavine, 49 A.D.2d 238; CPLR 902, subd 4). Titone, J.P., Mangano, O'Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kensington Gate Owners, Inc. v. Kalikow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 1984
99 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Kensington Gate Owners, Inc. v. Kalikow

Case Details

Full title:KENSINGTON GATE OWNERS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. PETER S. KALIKOW…

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

Date published: Jan 16, 1984

Citations

99 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

State of New York v. Myers

A court, in the exercise of its discretion, may dismiss a class action suit after expiration of the 60-day…

Largo v. T&R Constr. Corp.

The plaintiffs must establish that the action should be maintained as a class action (Feder v Staten Island…