Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Tirse v. Andrews, 128 A.D.3d 1112 (2015)

Citation
Tirse v. Andrews, 128 A.D.3d 1112 (2015)
Parent Document
Tirse v. Andrews, 128 A.D.3d 1112 (2015)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
2015-05-07

Full Text

797 chars
Several other arguments advanced by plaintiff require brief mention. Plaintiff complains that Supreme Court never decided his motion to compel certain discovery, but disclosure was stayed during the pendency of defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3214 [b]). Plaintiff further notes that Supreme Court failed to decide his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims. Supreme Court acknowledged that error and promised to correct it after the appealed-from order was issued, however, and plaintiff may not raise any issues regarding a pending motion upon this appeal (see Matter of Solomon T.R., 6 AD3d 449, 449 [2004]; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]). His remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, have been examined and rejected.