Morris v. Schepp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morris v. Schepp

59 A.D.3d 933, 873 N.Y.S.2d 785

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 933 (Morris v. Schepp) 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

Morris v. Schepp, 59 A.D.3d 933, 873 N.Y.S.2d 785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Robert C. Noonan, A.J.), entered January 2, 2008 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages. We note at the outset that the court properly treated the motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), and we conclude that defendants failed to meet their initial burden on the motion inasmuch as they failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Defendants’ remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not properly before us (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Centra, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Robert C. Noonan, A.J.), entered January 2, 2008 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages. We note at the outset that the court properly treated the motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), and we conclude that defendants failed to meet their initial burden on the motion inasmuch as they failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Defendants’ remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not properly before us (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Centra, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 933, 873 N.Y.S.2d 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-schepp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack