Frager v. TransWorld Airlines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frager v. TransWorld Airlines, Inc.

228 A.D.2d 502, 644 N.Y.2d 299, 644 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6601

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

DecidedJune 10, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 502 (Frager v. TransWorld Airlines, 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

Frager v. TransWorld Airlines, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 502, 644 N.Y.2d 299, 644 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[503]*503Trans World Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter TWA) cannot cross-appeal from the order entered March 23, 1995, and the resettled order entered April 3, 1995, which granted the motion by TWA to dismiss the proceeding, because TWA is not aggrieved by these orders (see, CPLR 5511). However, the argument by TWA that this proceeding should be dismissed upon the alternate ground that it was time-barred can be reviewed on the petitioner’s appeal (see, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 539).

We agree with the petitioner that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction over this proceeding (see, Hawaiian Airlines v Norris, 512 US 246; Harris v Hirsh, 86 NY2d 207). However, we also find that this proceeding was time-barred when commenced (see, Matter of Cantor v Langer, 210 AD2d 325; see also, Matter of Bianca v Frank, 43 NY2d 168).

The remaining contentions by TWA are not properly before this Court, as they are raised for the first time on appeal. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

[503]*503Trans World Airlines, Inc. (hereinafter TWA) cannot cross-appeal from the order entered March 23, 1995, and the resettled order entered April 3, 1995, which granted the motion by TWA to dismiss the proceeding, because TWA is not aggrieved by these orders (see, CPLR 5511). However, the argument by TWA that this proceeding should be dismissed upon the alternate ground that it was time-barred can be reviewed on the petitioner’s appeal (see, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 539).

We agree with the petitioner that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction over this proceeding (see, Hawaiian Airlines v Norris, 512 US 246; Harris v Hirsh, 86 NY2d 207). However, we also find that this proceeding was time-barred when commenced (see, Matter of Cantor v Langer, 210 AD2d 325; see also, Matter of Bianca v Frank, 43 NY2d 168).

The remaining contentions by TWA are not properly before this Court, as they are raised for the first time on appeal. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 502, 644 N.Y.2d 299, 644 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frager-v-transworld-airlines-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack