DePompo v. Waldbaums Supermarket

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DePompo v. Waldbaums Supermarket

267 A.D.2d 422, 704 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13323

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), entered December 29, 1998, which granted the defendants’ separate motions to vacate the plaintiff’s note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ separate motions to vacate the plaintiff’s note of issue on the ground that discovery was not complete. The sole claim made by the plaintiff on appeal is that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motions absent affirmations, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7, attesting to good faith efforts to resolve the issues raised by the motions. We decline to reach this issue which is being raised for the first time on appeal (see, Murray v Palmer, 229 AD2d 377; Shelton v Shelton, 151 AD2d 659). S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), entered December 29, 1998, which granted the defendants’ separate motions to vacate the plaintiff’s note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ separate motions to vacate the plaintiff’s note of issue on the ground that discovery was not complete. The sole claim made by the plaintiff on appeal is that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motions absent affirmations, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7, attesting to good faith efforts to resolve the issues raised by the motions. We decline to reach this issue which is being raised for the first time on appeal (see, Murray v Palmer, 229 AD2d 377; Shelton v Shelton, 151 AD2d 659). S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

DePompo v. Waldbaums Supermarket, 267 A.D.2d 422, 704 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

267 A.D.2d 422 (DePompo v. Waldbaums Supermarket) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related