Miceli v. Bayside Fuel Oil Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miceli v. Bayside Fuel Oil Corp.

259 A.D.2d 470, 684 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2040

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 470 (Miceli v. Bayside Fuel Oil Corp.) 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

Miceli v. Bayside Fuel Oil Corp., 259 A.D.2d 470, 684 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated March 17, 1998 as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to a prior determination made in an order of the same court, dated September 24, 1997, granting the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendants’ answer and precluding the defendant Thomas Byrd from testifying at trial unless he appeared for an examination before trial within a specified period.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

By decision and order of this Court dated June 10, 1998, the defendants’ appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 24, 1997, was dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court. The dismissal of that appeal was an adjudication on the merits with respect to all issues which could have been reviewed therein, and therefore the defendants are precluded from obtaining appellate review of those issues at this time (see, Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Gold-stein and McGinity, 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 defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated March 17, 1998 as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to a prior determination made in an order of the same court, dated September 24, 1997, granting the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendants’ answer and precluding the defendant Thomas Byrd from testifying at trial unless he appeared for an examination before trial within a specified period.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

By decision and order of this Court dated June 10, 1998, the defendants’ appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 24, 1997, was dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court. The dismissal of that appeal was an adjudication on the merits with respect to all issues which could have been reviewed therein, and therefore the defendants are precluded from obtaining appellate review of those issues at this time (see, Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Gold-stein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 470, 684 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miceli-v-bayside-fuel-oil-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack