From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hodge v. LoRusso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 13, 1992
181 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 13, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.

Present — Boomer, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Davis and Doerr, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed this CPLR article 78 proceeding against two Supreme Court Justices because Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over any proceeding brought against them (see, CPLR 506 [b] [1]; Matter of Nolan v Lungen, 61 N.Y.2d 788). Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding against the remaining respondents because petitioner improperly utilized an article 78 proceeding to seek review of issues which could have been raised on direct appeal (see, Matter of Sans v Doyle, 175 A.D.2d 670).

By failing to brief any issue concerning the propriety of the court's order settling the record on appeal, petitioner has waived review of that order. In any event, Supreme Court correctly concluded that correspondence that was not before it on respondents' motion to dismiss was not properly included in the record on appeal. The documents excluded from the record by Supreme Court have not been considered in the resolution of this appeal.


Summaries of

Hodge v. LoRusso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 13, 1992
181 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Hodge v. LoRusso

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL R. HODGE, Appellant, v. ANTHONY P. LoRUSSO, as Family Court Judge…

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

Date published: Mar 13, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 575

Citing Cases

Rivers v. Deane

They further testified that the inadequate structural support of the addition rendered unusable the third…

Matter of Pelsoni

Memorandum: In this action to compel specific performance of a trust agreement, we agree with the Surrogate's…