From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hogan v. Vandewater

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
May 3, 2019
172 A.D.3d 1893 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

217 CA 18–00562

05-03-2019

Mark HOGAN and Elizabeth Hogan, Individually, and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Jack A. Hogan, an Infant, and Ithaca G. Hogan, an Infant, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. David VANDEWATER, Frank P. Rose, and Gina Nicoletti, Defendants–Respondents. (Appeal No. 2.)

BOSMAN LAW FIRM, LLC, ROME (A.J. BOSMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS. MARK D. GORIS, CAZENOVIA, FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT DAVID VANDEWATER. SLYE LAW OFFICES, P.C., WATERTOWN (ROBERT J. SLYE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT FRANK P. ROSE. BARCLAY DAMON LLP, ROCHESTER (KELSEY TILL THOMPSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT GINA NICOLETTI.


BOSMAN LAW FIRM, LLC, ROME (A.J. BOSMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS–APPELLANTS.

MARK D. GORIS, CAZENOVIA, FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT DAVID VANDEWATER.

SLYE LAW OFFICES, P.C., WATERTOWN (ROBERT J. SLYE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT FRANK P. ROSE.

BARCLAY DAMON LLP, ROCHESTER (KELSEY TILL THOMPSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT GINA NICOLETTI.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs (see Smith v. Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 155 A.D.2d 435, 435, 547 N.Y.S.2d 96 [2d Dept. 1989] ; see also CPLR 5501[a][1] ).


Summaries of

Hogan v. Vandewater

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
May 3, 2019
172 A.D.3d 1893 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Hogan v. Vandewater

Case Details

Full title:Mark HOGAN and Elizabeth Hogan, Individually, and as Parents and Natural…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: May 3, 2019

Citations

172 A.D.3d 1893 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
97 N.Y.S.3d 921