Nardozzi v. Piotrowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nardozzi v. Piotrowski

298 A.D.2d 970, 748 N.Y.S.2d 122, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9019

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 1, 2002·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mahoney, J.), entered October 9, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries that Anthony Nardozzi (plaintiff) allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute. The sole contention of defendants on appeal is that the court erred in denying their motion on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish that plaintiff sustained a serious injury and thus failed to show a good and meritorious cause of action in opposition to defendants’ motion (see 3216 [e]). That contention, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before us (see Murach v Island of Bob-Lo Co., 290 AD2d 180, 182). Present—Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mahoney, J.), entered October 9, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries that Anthony Nardozzi (plaintiff) allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute. The sole contention of defendants on appeal is that the court erred in denying their motion on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish that plaintiff sustained a serious injury and thus failed to show a good and meritorious cause of action in opposition to defendants’ motion (see 3216 [e]). That contention, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before us (see Murach v Island of Bob-Lo Co., 290 AD2d 180, 182). Present—Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Nardozzi v. Piotrowski, 298 A.D.2d 970, 748 N.Y.S.2d 122, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

298 A.D.2d 970 (Nardozzi v. Piotrowski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related