Murray v. Palmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murray v. Palmer

229 A.D.2d 377, 644 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7587

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 1996·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated January 26, 1995, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Following the close of the plaintiff’s testimony, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on her failure to make out a prima facie case that she had sustained a serious injury, as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The sole claim raised by the plaintiff on appeal is that the court erred in dismissing the complaint without affording her the opportunity to introduce expert medical evidence to support her claim. We decline to reach this issue, which is raised for the first time on appeal (see, Shelton v Shelton, 151 AD2d 659). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated January 26, 1995, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, is in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Following the close of the plaintiff’s testimony, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on her failure to make out a prima facie case that she had sustained a serious injury, as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The sole claim raised by the plaintiff on appeal is that the court erred in dismissing the complaint without affording her the opportunity to introduce expert medical evidence to support her claim. We decline to reach this issue, which is raised for the first time on appeal (see, Shelton v Shelton, 151 AD2d 659). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Murray v. Palmer, 229 A.D.2d 377, 644 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

229 A.D.2d 377 (Murray v. Palmer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related