Scarangella v. Laborde

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scarangella v. Laborde

12 A.D.3d 660, 784 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14480

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 660 (Scarangella v. Laborde) 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

Scarangella v. Laborde, 12 A.D.3d 660, 784 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Executive Law § 632-a to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated June 20, 2003, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s contention that the 2001 amendments to Executive Law § 632-a violated his equal protection and due process rights is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Cibro Petroleum Prods. v Chu, 67 NY2d 806 [1986]; Melahn v Hearn, 60 NY2d 944 [1983]; Matter of Coleman v Thomas, 295 AD2d 508 [2002]; Matter of Burkins v Scully, 108 AD2d 743 [1985]). The defendant argued before the Supreme Court only that the amendments constituted an ex post facto violation, a claim which he has abandoned on appeal. In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see Snuszki v Wright, 193 Misc 2d 490 [2002], affd 1 AD3d 879 [2003]). Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Executive Law § 632-a to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated June 20, 2003, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s contention that the 2001 amendments to Executive Law § 632-a violated his equal protection and due process rights is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Cibro Petroleum Prods. v Chu, 67 NY2d 806 [1986]; Melahn v Hearn, 60 NY2d 944 [1983]; Matter of Coleman v Thomas, 295 AD2d 508 [2002]; Matter of Burkins v Scully, 108 AD2d 743 [1985]). The defendant argued before the Supreme Court only that the amendments constituted an ex post facto violation, a claim which he has abandoned on appeal. In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see Snuszki v Wright, 193 Misc 2d 490 [2002], affd 1 AD3d 879 [2003]). Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 660, 784 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarangella-v-laborde-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack