From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nixon v. Barrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1997
239 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 5, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).


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

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to join a necessary and indispensable party to this action ( see, CPLR 1001; see also, Ahders v. Ahders, 176 A.D.2d 230; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 155 A.D.2d 418). Moreover, because the applicable Statute of Limitations has expired ( see, Piedra v Vanover, 174 A.D.2d 191), the court properly dismissed the action against the respondents.

Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nixon v. Barrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1997
239 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Nixon v. Barrow

Case Details

Full title:IRWIN NIXON, Appellant, v. BRENDA G. BARROW et al., Respondents, et al.…

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

Date published: May 5, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 980

Citing Cases

Home Federal Savings Bank v. Versace

The motion to vacate the foreclosure sale should have been denied for failure to name and serve the…

Fagan v. Nowitz

Finally, the fifth factor also weighs against proceeding in the entities' absence, as it is questionable…