Arichavala v. Screen Tech

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arichavala v. Screen Tech

290 A.D.2d 405, 736 N.Y.S.2d 600, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 466

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 405 (Arichavala v. Screen Tech) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arichavala v. Screen Tech, 290 A.D.2d 405, 736 N.Y.S.2d 600, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendant Joseph Zuccarello appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated February 23, 2001, as, upon reargument, denied that branch of his prior motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

It is well settled that a litigant may not raise any issue on a subsequent appeal which was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution (see, Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350). Here, the appellant appealed from a prior order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, [406]*406dated August 20, 1999, which, inter alia, denied that branch of his prior motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. By decision and order of this Court dated December 21, 2000, that appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute (App Div Docket No. 2000-04462). The dismissal for lack of prosecution bars the instant appeal which raises issues that could have been raised on the prior appeal (see, Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750; Bray v Cox, supra). Ritter, Acting P.J., Feuerstein, Goldstein, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendant Joseph Zuccarello appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated February 23, 2001, as, upon reargument, denied that branch of his prior motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

It is well settled that a litigant may not raise any issue on a subsequent appeal which was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution (see, Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350). Here, the appellant appealed from a prior order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, [406]*406dated August 20, 1999, which, inter alia, denied that branch of his prior motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. By decision and order of this Court dated December 21, 2000, that appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute (App Div Docket No. 2000-04462). The dismissal for lack of prosecution bars the instant appeal which raises issues that could have been raised on the prior appeal (see, Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750; Bray v Cox, supra). Ritter, Acting P.J., Feuerstein, Goldstein, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 405, 736 N.Y.S.2d 600, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arichavala-v-screen-tech-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack