Johnston v. Continental Broker-Dealer Corp.
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- People ex rel. Smith v. Fields (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Pesce v. Fernandez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- St. John's University v. Butler Rogers Baskett Architects, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- St. John's University v. Butler Rogers Baskett Architects, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Costello v. Zaidman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Jackson v. Tide Way Homes, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Felberbaum v. Weinberger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Guiterrez v. Iannacci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Harleysville Insurance v. Rosario (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Almonte v. Western Beef, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Mennerich v. Esposito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Sanz v. Discount Auto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Adler v. Suffolk County Water Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- O'Regan v. Lundie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action commenced by motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to enforce a money judgment obtained in the State of Maryland upon the defendant’s default in appearing or answering, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated November 9, 2000, which granted the motion and denied its cross motion to dismiss the action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The arguments raised by the defendant on appeal were raised by it in the Supreme Court for the first time in its reply papers. As a result, the plaintiff did not have a fair opportunity to respond to these contentions. Under these circumstances, the arguments are not properly before this Court, and need not be addressed (see, Chavez v Bancker Constr. Corp., 272 AD2d 429; Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658; Matter of Falk v Village of Scarsdale Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 254 AD2d 358; Turkish Airlines v American Airlines, 249 AD2d 463; Pinkston v Weiss, 238 AD2d 393; Galatti v Alliance Funding Co., 228 AD2d 550, 551; Azzopardi v American Blower Corp., 192 AD2d 453). In any event, these contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.