Pacones v. Maddox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pacones v. Maddox

295 A.D.2d 489, 744 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6458

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

DecidedJune 17, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 489 (Pacones v. Maddox) 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

Pacones v. Maddox, 295 A.D.2d 489, 744 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the defendants, Alton H. Maddox and Alfred C. Sharpton, separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hickman, J.), dated October 27, 2000, which, inter alia, denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) and (3) to vacate two judgments of the same court, both dated September 3, 1998 (one against each defendant) in favor of the plaintiff and against them.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

As a general rule, this Court will not consider any issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised or could have been raised on an earlier appeal that was dismissed for failure to prosecute, although we have inherent discretion to consider such issues (see Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350). Here, we decline to exercise this discretion. The appellants previously appealed from judgments entered September 3, 1998, in favor of the plaintiff. Their appeals, however, were dismissed by order of this Court dated July 3, 2000, for lack of prosecution. The dismissals bar the instant appeals, which raise issues which could have been raised on the prior appeals (see Rubeo v Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750; Bray v Cox, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the defendants, Alton H. Maddox and Alfred C. Sharpton, separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hickman, J.), dated October 27, 2000, which, inter alia, denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) and (3) to vacate two judgments of the same court, both dated September 3, 1998 (one against each defendant) in favor of the plaintiff and against them.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

As a general rule, this Court will not consider any issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised or could have been raised on an earlier appeal that was dismissed for failure to prosecute, although we have inherent discretion to consider such issues (see Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350). Here, we decline to exercise this discretion. The appellants previously appealed from judgments entered September 3, 1998, in favor of the plaintiff. Their appeals, however, were dismissed by order of this Court dated July 3, 2000, for lack of prosecution. The dismissals bar the instant appeals, which raise issues which could have been raised on the prior appeals (see Rubeo v Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750; Bray v Cox, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 489, 744 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacones-v-maddox-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack