From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zafonte v. Steinhammer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 2000
277 A.D.2d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted November 1, 2000.

November 28, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated November 19, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendants Alejandro Roman and Jose Roman to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8).

Charles S. Kovit, Hewlett, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard J. Inzerillo, P.C., Bohemia, N.Y. (Daniel P. Gregory of counsel), for respondents.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's sole contention on appeal is that the Supreme Court erred in failing to grant her an extension of time to serve the respondents in the interest of justice pursuant to CPLR 306-b. However, her argument, raised for the first time on appeal, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Fleet Bank v. Powerhouse Trading Corp., 267 A.D.2d 276, 277; Dufficy v. Wharf Bar Grill, 217 A.D.2d 646), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.


Summaries of

Zafonte v. Steinhammer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 2000
277 A.D.2d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Zafonte v. Steinhammer

Case Details

Full title:NICOLE ZAFONTE, APPELLANT, v. ROBERT STEINHAMMER, DEFENDANT, ALEJANDRO…

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

Date published: Nov 28, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 896

Citing Cases

H. Fox Co., Inc. v. Blumenfeld

Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in preliminarily enjoining the defendants from transferring or…

Gomez v. City of White Plains

The determination to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sole discretion of the trial…