SMISLOFF, JAMES J. v. STOTT, JR., DAVID P.

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 20, 2015
DocketCA 14-02066
StatusPublished

This text of SMISLOFF, JAMES J. v. STOTT, JR., DAVID P. (SMISLOFF, JAMES J. v. STOTT, JR., DAVID P.) 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
SMISLOFF, JAMES J. v. STOTT, JR., DAVID P., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1151 CA 14-02066 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

JAMES J. SMISLOFF, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID P. STOTT, JR., 1390 PITTSFORD-MENDON ROAD, LLC, AND NORTHCOAST WINDOW CLEANING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. ------------------------------------------------ DAVID P. STOTT, JR., AND 1390 PITTSFORD-MENDON ROAD, LLC, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V

GREGG SMISLOFF, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

ELLIOTT STERN CALABRESE, LLP, ROCHESTER (DAVID S. STERN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

LECLAIR KORONA GIORDANO COLE LLP, ROCHESTER (JEREMY M. SHER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered August 14, 2014. The judgment awarded plaintiff money damages of $72,800, plus interest, costs and disbursements.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendants-third-party plaintiffs (defendants) appeal from a judgment that, inter alia, dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) their third-party “counter-claim[s] and cause[s] of action” (counterclaims) asserting tortious interference of contract and conversion. Inasmuch as defendants failed to oppose that part of plaintiff’s and third-party defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss those counterclaims, defendants’ contentions with respect thereto are not preserved for our review (see Ladd v Hudson Val. Ambulance Serv., 142 AD2d 17, 21; see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985).

Entered: November 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

Ladd v. Hudson Valley Ambulance Service
142 A.D.2d 17 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora
202 A.D.2d 984 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
SMISLOFF, JAMES J. v. STOTT, JR., DAVID P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smisloff-james-j-v-stott-jr-david-p-nyappdiv-2015.