Sandoval v. Juodzevich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sandoval v. Juodzevich

293 A.D.2d 595, 740 N.Y.S.2d 217, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3787

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

DecidedApril 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 595 (Sandoval v. Juodzevich) 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

Sandoval v. Juodzevich, 293 A.D.2d 595, 740 N.Y.S.2d 217, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered April 12, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) because this issue was necessarily decided in a prior order of the same court which granted his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Since this argument is improperly advanced for the first time on appeal, it is unpreserved for appellate review (see Weber v Jacobs, 289 AD2d 226; Gorenstein v Debralaurie Realty [596]*596Co., 280 AD2d 642; Rosendale v Galin, 266 AD2d 444; Orellano v Samples Tire Equip. & Supply Corp., 110 AD2d 757, 758). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered April 12, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) because this issue was necessarily decided in a prior order of the same court which granted his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Since this argument is improperly advanced for the first time on appeal, it is unpreserved for appellate review (see Weber v Jacobs, 289 AD2d 226; Gorenstein v Debralaurie Realty [596]*596Co., 280 AD2d 642; Rosendale v Galin, 266 AD2d 444; Orellano v Samples Tire Equip. & Supply Corp., 110 AD2d 757, 758). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 595, 740 N.Y.S.2d 217, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandoval-v-juodzevich-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack