Roth v. Robbins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roth v. Robbins

117 A.D.2d 794, 499 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53065

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 794 (Roth v. Robbins) 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

Roth v. Robbins, 117 A.D.2d 794, 499 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 17, 1984, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.

Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated by Justice Graci in his memorandum decision at Special Term.

In addition, we note that an argument raised by the plaintiff on appeal was not raised before Special Term. Therefore, that argument is not properly before this court (see, Abacus Real Estate Fin. Co. v P.A.R. Constr. & Maintenance Corp., 115 AD2d 576; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 70:300). Nothing in this record inclines us to make an exception in this case. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

—In a malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 17, 1984, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.

Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated by Justice Graci in his memorandum decision at Special Term.

In addition, we note that an argument raised by the plaintiff on appeal was not raised before Special Term. Therefore, that argument is not properly before this court (see, Abacus Real Estate Fin. Co. v P.A.R. Constr. & Maintenance Corp., 115 AD2d 576; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 70:300). Nothing in this record inclines us to make an exception in this case. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 794, 499 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-robbins-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack