Sher v. Allied Bayview Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sher v. Allied Bayview Corp.

207 A.D.2d 536, 616 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8605

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

DecidedAugust 29, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 536 (Sher v. Allied Bayview Corp.) 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

Sher v. Allied Bayview Corp., 207 A.D.2d 536, 616 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated May 15, 1994, which denied their motion to serve an amended complaint adding Allied Princess Bay Company as an additional defendant, and which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the sole defendant Allied Bayview Corporation. The notice of appeal from a decision of the same court, dated October 22, 1991, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order and judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant Allied Bayview Corporation is estopped from denying ownership of the property where she was injured was never raised before the Supreme Court and thus may not be asserted for the first time on appeal (see, Marazzo v Frontier Ins. Co., 189 AD2d 755; Reyes v 38 Sickles St. Corp., 188 AD2d 518). In any event, we find this claim to be without merit. Nor have the plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of any genuine issues of material [537]*537fact so as to warrant the denial of the defendant’s motion. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated May 15, 1994, which denied their motion to serve an amended complaint adding Allied Princess Bay Company as an additional defendant, and which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the sole defendant Allied Bayview Corporation. The notice of appeal from a decision of the same court, dated October 22, 1991, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order and judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant Allied Bayview Corporation is estopped from denying ownership of the property where she was injured was never raised before the Supreme Court and thus may not be asserted for the first time on appeal (see, Marazzo v Frontier Ins. Co., 189 AD2d 755; Reyes v 38 Sickles St. Corp., 188 AD2d 518). In any event, we find this claim to be without merit. Nor have the plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of any genuine issues of material [537]*537fact so as to warrant the denial of the defendant’s motion. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 536, 616 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sher-v-allied-bayview-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack