Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007

Plastic Surgery Group of Rochester, LLC v. Evangelisti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 20, 2007 · Appeal No. 1

39 A.D.3d 1265; 832 N.Y.S.2d 840

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Garcia v. Town of Tonawanda (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Ah Wines, Inc. v. C6 Capital Funding LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Nicol v. Nicol (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Torres (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Torres (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
EDDY, WILLIAM M. v. ANTANAVIGE, DAVID (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
MEENAN, WADE R. v. MEENAN, JOSEPHINE M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Plastic Surgery Group of Rochester, LLC v. Evangelisti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Irene v. Irene (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)

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

Appeal from a decision (denominated amended and corrected decision and order) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered September 29, 2006. The decision, among other things, directed the parties to settle an order consistent with the decision.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

*1266Memorandum: Although the document on appeal in appeal No. 1 is denominated an amended and corrected decision and order, we conclude that it is a mere decision, from which no appeal lies (see Kuhn v Kuhn, 129 AD2d 967 [1987]). We affirm the order in appeal No. 2 for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that the requests of plaintiff and the counterclaim defendants for an award of costs and expenses incurred in opposing the contempt motion and for the imposition of sanctions against defendant based on his conduct in filing the contempt motion are raised for the first time on appeal and thus are not properly before this Court (see Moss v McKelvey, 32 AD3d 1281, 1283 [2006]; Ali v Ahmad, 24 AD3d 475, 476 [2005]; see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.