Teddy Moore, appellant, v. TD (2010)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Teddy Moore, appellant, v. TD Bank, N.A., respondent; Barry J. Glickman, et al., nonparty-respondents.

2009-10385 2009-10386 2009-10387 2009-10388 (Index No. 8951 /09)

Decided: December 21, 2010

MARK C. DILLON, J.P. ANITA R. FLORIO RUTH C. BALKIN SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

Teddy Moore, Elmhurst, N.Y., appellant pro se. Zeichner Ellman & Krause, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barry J. Glickman, nonparty-respondent pro se, of counsel), for respondent and nonparty-respondents. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated October 15, 2009, as, upon granting that branch of his motion which was for leave to reargue his prior motion for leave to enter a default judgment, adhered to the original determination in an order dated July 8, 2009, denying his motion, and denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment for the defendant ‘s failure to answer interrogatories, (2) from an order of the same court also dated October 15, 2009, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, (3) from an order of the same court also dated October 15, 2009, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and (4) from an order of the same court also dated October 15, 2009, which denied his motion to hold nonparties Barry J. Glickman and Jason Sbalcio in contempt.

Submitted-October 5, 2010

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the first order dated October 15, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the three remaining orders dated October 15, 2009, are affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

Upon granting leave to reargue, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended a matter of fact or law in determining the prior motion (see CPLR 2221[d][2] ).

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to hold nonparties Barry J. Glickman and Jason Sbalcio in contempt. Since neither of the nonparties was personally served with the contempt motion, the court did not have jurisdiction over them (see John Sexton & Co. v. Law Foods, 108 A.D.2d 785).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

DILLON, J.P., FLORIO, BALKIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law