You are here: / / THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION ON A GROUND (STANDING)...
,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION ON A GROUND (STANDING) NOT RAISED BY A PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed causes of action for lack of standing when that issue was not raised by the parties:

We thus conclude that the court erred in sua sponte reaching the issue of standing with respect to the second and third causes of action … . Standing “is an aspect of justiciability which, when challenged, must be considered at the outset of any litigation” … . Inasmuch as the … respondents’ cross motion with respect to the second and third causes of action was not based on petitioners’ alleged lack of standing, there was no basis for the court to reach that issue.  Matter of Barbeau v Village of LeRoy, 2020 NY Slip Op 01732, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

You might also like
JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY TO MOTHER AND FATHER AND PRIMARY CUSTODY TO FATHER WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
TRUST WHICH ALLOWED PETITIONER’S CHILDREN TO DISTRIBUTE PRINCIPAL TO PETITIONER RENDERED PETITIONER INELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID, DESPITE CHILDREN’S REFUSAL TO MAKE A DISTRIBUTION.
CAUSE OF FALL SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED WITH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DEFENSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
PLAINTIFF’S TITLE IX AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION, BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER IN 1972 AND 1973, ARE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
NEGLIGENT BRAKING BY TRUCK DRIVER, IN RESPONSE TO A COLLISION WITH A THIRD PARTY, MAY HAVE BEEN A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE TRUCK AND PLAINTIFFF. 
THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT).
The Destruction of Decedent’s Body in a Trash Compactor Gave Rise to a Cause of Action for Loss of Sepulcher
Court’s Equitable Power to Set Aside a Foreclosure Sale as “An Instrument of Injustice” Explained and Applied

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

JUDGE WHO WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED WAS DISQUALIFIED... CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS SUPPORTED...