Baker v. Boston Land Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baker v. Boston Land Co.

252 A.D.2d 511, 675 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8266

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D.2d 511 (Baker v. Boston Land Co.) 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

Baker v. Boston Land Co., 252 A.D.2d 511, 675 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Otis Elevator Company, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County [512]*512(Bernhard, J.), dated January 20, 1998, which denied its motion, inter alia, for an order of preclusion pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion, inter alia, for an order of preclusion (see, Heffran v St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr., 236 AD2d 367).

The appellant’s contention that this action should not be noticed for trial is being raised for the first time on appeal and thus will not be considered by this Court (see, Murray v Palmer, 229 AD2d 377). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Gold-stein, 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, the defendant Otis Elevator Company, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County [512]*512(Bernhard, J.), dated January 20, 1998, which denied its motion, inter alia, for an order of preclusion pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion, inter alia, for an order of preclusion (see, Heffran v St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr., 236 AD2d 367).

The appellant’s contention that this action should not be noticed for trial is being raised for the first time on appeal and thus will not be considered by this Court (see, Murray v Palmer, 229 AD2d 377). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 511, 675 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-boston-land-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack