Chavez v. Bancker Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chavez v. Bancker Construction Corp.

272 A.D.2d 429, 708 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5578

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

DecidedMay 15, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 429 (Chavez v. Bancker Construction Corp.) 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

Chavez v. Bancker Construction Corp., 272 A.D.2d 429, 708 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendant Bancker Construction Corp., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 12, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The appellant did not assert the limited immunity provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) as a basis for the granting of summary judgment in its favor until the submission of its reply papers, and thus the respondents did not have a fair opportunity to respond to that contention. Under these circumstances, that contention is not properly before this Court, and need not be addressed (see, Matter of Falk v Village of Scarsdale Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 254 AD2d 358; Turkish Airlines v American Airlines, 249 AD2d 463; Galatti v Alliance Funding Co., 228 AD2d 550; Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658). The appellant otherwise failed to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, 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 Bancker Construction Corp., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 12, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The appellant did not assert the limited immunity provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) as a basis for the granting of summary judgment in its favor until the submission of its reply papers, and thus the respondents did not have a fair opportunity to respond to that contention. Under these circumstances, that contention is not properly before this Court, and need not be addressed (see, Matter of Falk v Village of Scarsdale Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 254 AD2d 358; Turkish Airlines v American Airlines, 249 AD2d 463; Galatti v Alliance Funding Co., 228 AD2d 550; Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658). The appellant otherwise failed to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 429, 708 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chavez-v-bancker-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack