Legal Opinion · Dissent
Slomin v. Skaarland Construction Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided August 25, 1994Published
1Dissent
Weiss, J. (dissenting).
Initially, I agree that plaintiff has abandoned her appeal from (or waived review of) the dismissal *643of her causes of action for strict liability, breach of warranty and merchantability, and nuisance, in addition to her appeal from dismissal of all causes of action against defendant Skaarland Construction Corporation, because she failed to address or discuss those issues in her brief on this appeal (see, Bombard v Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Co., 205 AD2d 1018; Matter of Hogan (Montgomery) v Goodspeed, 196 AD2d 675, 678, affd 82 NY2d 710; see also, First Natl. Bank v…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Foley v. RocheAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Ryan v. Feeney & Sheehan Building Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1924
- First National Bank v. Mountain Food Enterprises, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Farragher v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Rodney v. New York Pyrotechnic Products Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.