From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nardozzi v. Piotrowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2002
298 A.D.2d 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

CA 02-00499

October 1, 2002.

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mahoney, J.), entered October 9, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

LAW OFFICES CHARLES G. DI PASQUALE, BUFFALO (KEVIN E. KETCHUM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

PAUL WILLIAM BELTZ, P.C., BUFFALO (KEVIN J. SULLIVAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries that Anthony Nardozzi (plaintiff) allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Supreme Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute. The sole contention of defendants on appeal is that the court erred in denying their motion on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish that plaintiff sustained a serious injury and thus failed to show a good and meritorious cause of action in opposition to defendants' motion ( see 3216 [e]). That contention, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before us ( see Murach v. Island of Bob-Lo Co., 290 A.D.2d 180, 182).


Summaries of

Nardozzi v. Piotrowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2002
298 A.D.2d 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Nardozzi v. Piotrowski

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY NARDOZZI AND SUSAN NARDOZZI, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. EDWARD L…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Oct 1, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
748 N.Y.S.2d 122

Citing Cases

Hawe v. Delmar

Plaintiff established a justifiable excuse for his failure to comply with defendants' 90–day demand in the…