Matter of Panetta v Carroll
2009 NY Slip Op 04244 [62 AD3d 1010]
May 26, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 1, 2009


In the Matter of Cosimo Panetta, Appellant,
v
RichardCarroll et al., Respondents.

[*1]Joseph C. Messina, Mamaroneck, N.Y., for appellant.

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), forrespondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel theissuance of a certificate of occupancy, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (onepaper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), entered July 25, 2007, whichgranted that branch of the respondents' motion which was to dismiss the proceeding astime-barred and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

None of the arguments raised by the petitioner on appeal were raised before the SupremeCourt prior to its determination. Thus, the arguments are not properly before this Court on appeal(see Pekich v James E. Lawrence, Inc.,38 AD3d 632 [2007]). Further, none of the arguments present a question of law whichcould not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture. Thus, the arguments may not bereached for the first time on appeal (id.). Accordingly, the dismissal of the proceedingshould be affirmed. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Santucci and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.