Jenkins v. Jamesway Department Store

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenkins v. Jamesway Department Store

174 A.D.2d 963, 572 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9464

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

DecidedJune 27, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D.2d 963 (Jenkins v. Jamesway Department Store) 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

Jenkins v. Jamesway Department Store, 174 A.D.2d 963, 572 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered July 2, 1990 in Schenectady County, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In contending that their motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint should have been granted, defendants argue that there were reasonable grounds for detaining plaintiff. However, in initially making their motion this issue was not raised before Supreme Court. It is therefore not properly before this court and may not be considered for the first time on appeal (see, Rohdie v Michael Guidice, Inc., 132 AD2d 541; Soto v Frank’s Beer & Soda, 128 AD2d 604). An examination of the record before us contains nothing to merit consideration of this issue in the interest of justice (see, Peoples Commercial Bank v Greene Distrib., 149 AD2d 774).

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered July 2, 1990 in Schenectady County, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In contending that their motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint should have been granted, defendants argue that there were reasonable grounds for detaining plaintiff. However, in initially making their motion this issue was not raised before Supreme Court. It is therefore not properly before this court and may not be considered for the first time on appeal (see, Rohdie v Michael Guidice, Inc., 132 AD2d 541; Soto v Frank’s Beer & Soda, 128 AD2d 604). An examination of the record before us contains nothing to merit consideration of this issue in the interest of justice (see, Peoples Commercial Bank v Greene Distrib., 149 AD2d 774).

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 963, 572 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-jamesway-department-store-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack