From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sher v. Allied Bayview Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 29, 1994
207 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

August 29, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs' contention that the defendant Allied Bayview Corporation is estopped from denying ownership of the property where she was injured was never raised before the Supreme Court and thus may not be asserted for the first time on appeal (see, Marazzo v. Frontier Ins. Co., 189 A.D.2d 755; Reyes v. 38 Sickles St. Corp., 188 A.D.2d 518). In any event, we find this claim to be without merit. Nor have the plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of any genuine issues of material fact so as to warrant the denial of the defendant's motion. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sher v. Allied Bayview Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 29, 1994
207 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Sher v. Allied Bayview Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MARY SHER et al., Appellants, v. ALLIED BAYVIEW CORPORATION, Respondent

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

Date published: Aug 29, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 250

Citing Cases

McLane v. Meyer [2d Dept 1999

The plaintiff's medical history was an appropriate area of inquiry and is generally necessary for a…

McLane v. Meyer

The plaintiffs medical history was an appropriate area of inquiry and is generally necessary for a meaningful…