Court Opinion

ID: 9686154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:31:34.178255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:15.368981
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result only because the majority opinion goes far beyond what is necessary to resolve this appeal. The issues raised, and generously answered, were not raised below. It is fundamental that questions raised for the first time on appeal are not considered. Justice Cardozo once noted that courts do not weary of cautioning counsel to distinguish dictum from decision. Smith v. Hedges, 223 N.Y. 176, 184, 119 N.E. 396 (Cardozo, J., dissenting) (1918). I take this opportunity therefore to caution that the majority opinion is, with the exception of the decision to affirm, mere dicta, of no precedential value and, in my view, far more consideration than appellant is entitled to.