Fuhr v. Smith

<div>Fuhr v Smith - 2026 NY Slip Op 02921 <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Fuhr v Smith</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 02921</p> <p>May 12, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, First Department</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>Kristopher Fuhr et al., Appellants,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Lisa Smith et al., Respondents.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered: May 12, 2026</p> <p>Index No. 153767/25|Appeal No. 6591|Case No. 2025-05994|</p> <p>Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Mendez, Shulman, Rodriguez, Hagler, JJ. </p> <div> <p>Patrick|Doerr LLP, New York (Mark Doerr of counsel), for appellants.</p> <p>Harold M. Somer, PC, Westbury (Harold M. Somer of counsel), for respondents.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered July 25, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for an order of seizure, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order of seizure vacated, and defendants' counterclaim dismissed.</p> <p>Defendants' answer, filed before plaintiffs filed their complaint, was a nullity, as was any counterclaim contained in the answer (<i>Anostario v Anostario</i>, 255 AD2d 777, 778 n 2 [3d Dept 1998]; <i>see</i> <i>Stevenson v Diamond Fuel Co.</i>,<i> Inc.</i> 198 App Div 345, 347 [1st Dept 1921]). Thus, the counterclaim must be dismissed as procedurally improper (<i>see</i> <i>Rubin v Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP</i>, 151 AD3d 603, 604 [1st Dept 2017]). In addition, because there was no valid counterclaim, Supreme Court had no basis on</p> <p>which to grant defendants' motion for an order of seizure (<i>see</i> <i>Paper Chemistry Consulting Lab. v Goetz</i>, 75 AD2d 579, 579 [2d Dept 1980]).</p> <p>In light view of the foregoing, plaintiff's remaining arguments are academic. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER</p> <p>OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. </p> <p>ENTERED: May 12, 2026</p> </div> <div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <p>Albany, NY 12207</p> <p>Phone: (518) 453-6900</p> </div> </footer> </div> <div> <p>Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.</p> </div> </div>