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

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 970 (Nardozzi v. Piotrowski) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 970, 748 N.Y.S.2d 122, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nardozzi-v-piotrowski-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack