D'Imperio v. Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Imperio v. Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc.

262 A.D.2d 410, 691 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6306

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

DecidedJune 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 410 (D'Imperio v. Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc.) 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

D'Imperio v. Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 410, 691 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc., to provide certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, the Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated March 16, 1998, as, inter alia, directed it to disclose certain specified documents, and Joseph J. D’lmperio cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of the same judg[411]*411ment, as, inter alia, dismissed the petition insofar as it sought to annul the determination of the Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc., denying his request for certain other documents.

Ordered that the appeal of the Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc., from so much of the judgment as directed it to provide disclosure of certain tax returns is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the appellant consented to that relief, and no appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party (see, Baecher v Baecher, 95 AD2d 841); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition only in part. The Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc., offered sufficient proof, in the submissions of its president and attorney, that certain of the documents sought by the petitioner were either not in its possession or did not exist (see, Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; Matter of Gabriels v Curiale, 216 AD2d 850).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit, need not be addressed in light of this determination, or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see, Murray v Palmer, 229 AD2d 377). S. Miller, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc., to provide certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, the Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated March 16, 1998, as, inter alia, directed it to disclose certain specified documents, and Joseph J. D’lmperio cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of the same judg[411]*411ment, as, inter alia, dismissed the petition insofar as it sought to annul the determination of the Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc., denying his request for certain other documents.

Ordered that the appeal of the Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc., from so much of the judgment as directed it to provide disclosure of certain tax returns is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the appellant consented to that relief, and no appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party (see, Baecher v Baecher, 95 AD2d 841); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition only in part. The Putnam Lake Fire Department, Inc., offered sufficient proof, in the submissions of its president and attorney, that certain of the documents sought by the petitioner were either not in its possession or did not exist (see, Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; Matter of Gabriels v Curiale, 216 AD2d 850).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit, need not be addressed in light of this determination, or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see, Murray v Palmer, 229 AD2d 377). S. Miller, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 410, 691 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dimperio-v-putnam-lake-fire-department-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack