From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sandoval v. Juodzevich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 2002
293 A.D.2d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-05849

Submitted March 6, 2002.

April 15, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered April 12, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Ezra and Howe, Elmont, N.Y. (Joel S. Ezra of counsel), for appellant.

Schondebare Brown, LLP, Ronkonkoma, N.Y. (John M. Denby of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) because this issue was necessarily decided in a prior order of the same court which granted his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Since this argument is improperly advanced for the first time on appeal, it is unpreserved for appellate review (see Weber v. Jacobs, 289 A.D.2d 226; Gorenstein v. Debralaurie Realty Co., 280 A.D.2d 642; Rosendale v. Galin, 266 A.D.2d 444; Orellano v. Samples Tire Equip. and Supply Corp., 110 A.D.2d 757, 758).

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sandoval v. Juodzevich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 2002
293 A.D.2d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Sandoval v. Juodzevich

Case Details

Full title:GIL SANDOVAL, appellant, v. MICHAEL B. JUODZEVICH, respondent

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

Date published: Apr 15, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
740 N.Y.S.2d 217

Citing Cases

Sarva v. Chakravorty

Accordingly, this action to recover on the note was timely commenced within six years after the note matured,…

Sample v. Levada

The respondents did not oppose the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve and file an amended complaint. Thus,…