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

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 422 (DePompo v. Waldbaums Supermarket) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 422, 704 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/depompo-v-waldbaums-supermarket-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack