Smisloff v. Stott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smisloff v. Stott

133 A.D.3d 1331, 19 N.Y.S.3d 452

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 20, 2015·No. Appeal No. 2·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

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 [1332]*1332review (see Ladd v Hudson Val. Ambulance Serv., 142 AD2d 17, 21 [1988]; see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Garni, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.

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

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 [1332]*1332review (see Ladd v Hudson Val. Ambulance Serv., 142 AD2d 17, 21 [1988]; see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Garni, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.

Smisloff v. Stott, 133 A.D.3d 1331, 19 N.Y.S.3d 452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

133 A.D.3d 1331 (Smisloff v. Stott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related