Court Opinion

ID: 5841495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 23:13:18.88195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:47.343744
License: Public Domain

As the plaintiff correctly concedes, the sole argument he raises on appeal was not advanced before the Supreme Court. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, his argument does not present a pure question of law that could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture (see Matter of Panetta v Carroll, 62 AD3d 1010 [2009]). Accordingly, his argument may not be reached for the first time on appeal (see NYU Hosp. for Joint Diseases v Country Wide Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2011]; Pekich v James E. Lawrence, Inc., 38 AD3d 632, 633 [2007]). Mastro, A.EJ., Angiolillo, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.