You are here: / / RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED...

RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE NECESSARY PARTIES SUMMONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss should not have been granted on the ground plaintiffs failed to join necessary parties. The court should have ordered the parties summoned:

Necessary parties are those “who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action” (CPLR 1001[a] …). Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the Limited Partnership and the third limited partner, Ai Ying Zheng, are necessary parties to this action … . …

… [A]s the Limited Partnership and Ai Ying Zheng are subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the court should have “order[ed][them] summoned,” rather than granting the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to join necessary parties (CPLR 1001[b]…). Ji Juan Lin v Bo Jin Zhu, 2021 NY Slip Op 00550, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS ENTITLED TO A NEW HEARING ON WHETHER THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE; THE COURT NOTED THAT A CONTRACT WHICH MAY NOT BE UNCONSCIONABLE WHEN ENTERED MAY BECOME UNCONSCIONABLE WHEN FINAL JUDGMENT IS ENTERED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER 2ND DEPT.
Forum Selection Clause in a “Release of Liability” Form Is Enforceable
SORA Hearing Procedure.
PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MOVE A SCAFFOLD WHILE STANDING ON IT AND IT FELL OVER; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL PERMIT WITHOUT A HEARING BASED UPON PRIOR ARRESTS WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE OR A WEAPON WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT, AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL, AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER WHO RESIDES IN FLORIDA; THE CHILDREN APPEALED; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT REVERSED AND AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER, IN PART BECAUSE FAMILY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN AGES 12 AND 15 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TAX LIEN FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE NOTICE TO REDEEM; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES FROM THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

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

A PLENARY ACTION WAS REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH... NYC FIRE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PRIVACY AND...