| Polanco v Lewis Flushing Corp. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00197 [91 AD3d 624] |
| Jnury 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Antonio Polanco, Appellant, v Lewis Flushing Corp.,Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendants, et al., Third-PartyDefendant. |
—[*1] Barry, McTiernan & Moore, New York, N.Y. (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), fordefendant/third-party plaintiff-respondent. Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Joel Simon ofcounsel), for third-party defendant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), datedSeptember 7, 2010, as, upon renewal, adhered to so much of an original determination in anorder of the same court dated January 13, 2010, as, upon, in effect, searching the record, awardedsummary judgment to the defendant Lewis Flushing Corporation dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
As the plaintiff correctly concedes, the sole argument he raises on appeal was not advancedbefore the Supreme Court. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, his argument does not present apure question of law that could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture (see Matter of Panetta v Carroll, 62AD3d 1010 [2009]). Accordingly, his argument may not be reached for the first time onappeal (see NYU Hosp. for JointDiseases v Country Wide Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2011]; Pekich v James E. Lawrence, Inc., 38AD3d 632, 633 [2007]). Mastro, A.P.J., Angiolillo, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.