Opinion
767 CA 22-00137
11-10-2022
Shane Christopher BUCZEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF EVANS, Town of Cheektowaga, Town of Brant, Ernest P. Masullo, Nathan A. Miller, Peter A. Smith, Grant Zajas, Defendants-Respondents, et al., Defendants.
SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE. KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (KARL ERICH DANIEL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS TOWN OF EVANS, ERNEST P. MASULLO, NATHAN A. MILLER, PETER A. SMITH AND GRANT ZAJAS. COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C., BUFFALO (MARC SMITH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA. BURDEN, HAFNER & HANSEN, LLC, BUFFALO (SARAH E. HANSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT TOWN OF BRANT.
SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.
KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (KARL ERICH DANIEL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS TOWN OF EVANS, ERNEST P. MASULLO, NATHAN A. MILLER, PETER A. SMITH AND GRANT ZAJAS.
COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C., BUFFALO (MARC SMITH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT TOWN OF CHEEKTOWAGA.
BURDEN, HAFNER & HANSEN, LLC, BUFFALO (SARAH E. HANSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT TOWN OF BRANT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., NEMOYER, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this action for, inter alia, malicious prosecution and violation of plaintiff's civil rights pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, plaintiff appeals from an order that granted the motions of defendants Town of Evans and Town of Brant to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 and the Town of Cheektowaga's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.
As limited by his appellate brief, plaintiff challenges only those parts of the order that granted the motions with respect to his causes of action for malicious prosecution and under 42 USC § 1983. In that brief, however, plaintiff failed to challenge Supreme Court's first and independently dispositive ground for granting those parts of the motions and dismissing those causes of action. Thus, by failing to address the basis for the court's determination, plaintiff effectively abandoned any challenge to the granting of those parts of the motions (see Walton & Willet Stone Block, LLC v. City of Oswego Community Dev. Off. , 206 A.D.3d 1688, 1689, 170 N.Y.S.3d 750 [4th Dept. 2022] ; Haher v. Pelusio , 156 A.D.3d 1381, 1382, 67 N.Y.S.3d 744 [4th Dept. 2017] ). To the extent that plaintiff attempts to raise new contentions on appeal for the first time in his reply brief, those contentions are not properly before us (see Solvay Bank v. Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. , 187 A.D.3d 1596, 1597, 129 N.Y.S.3d 887 [4th Dept. 2020] ; Becker-Manning, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Utica , 114 A.D.3d 1143, 1144, 980 N.Y.S.2d 651 [4th Dept. 2014] ).