Flores v. Nikac

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flores v. Nikac

121 A.D.3d 577, 993 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2014

Docket13287 303858/11

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 577 (Flores v. Nikac) 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

Flores v. Nikac, 121 A.D.3d 577, 993 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered January 16, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the common-law negligence cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ initial moving papers failed to establish prima facie that they were not negligent in connection with the decedent’s death.

It was only in reply to plaintiff’s opposition to the motion that defendants raised arguments specifically addressing plaintiff’s allegations, their duty under the common law, and the evidence in the record (for example, they contend that defendant Nina Nikac cannot be held liable for the decedent’s death because she was not the owner of the building). Since these arguments were not timely raised, we do not consider them (see Ritt v Lenox Hill Hosp., 182 AD2d 560, 561-562 [1st Dept 1992]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered January 16, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the common-law negligence cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ initial moving papers failed to establish prima facie that they were not negligent in connection with the decedent’s death.

It was only in reply to plaintiff’s opposition to the motion that defendants raised arguments specifically addressing plaintiff’s allegations, their duty under the common law, and the evidence in the record (for example, they contend that defendant Nina Nikac cannot be held liable for the decedent’s death because she was not the owner of the building). Since these arguments were not timely raised, we do not consider them (see Ritt v Lenox Hill Hosp., 182 AD2d 560, 561-562 [1st Dept 1992]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 577, 993 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-nikac-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack