Oparaji v. Miracle Motors, Inc.

Oparaji v Miracle Motors, Inc. (2022 NY Slip Op 51266(U)) [*1] Oparaji v Miracle Motors, Inc. 2022 NY Slip Op 51266(U) [77 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on December 2, 2022 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on December 2, 2022 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, JJ 2020-637 Q C Maurice Oparaji, Appellant, against Miracle Motors, Inc., Maurice G. Mitchell and Monique G. Mitchell, as Administrators of the Estate of Maurice Mitchell, Deceased, Respondents. Maurice Oparaji, appellant pro se. Law Offices of Ishelli Oliver, Esq. (Ishelli Oliver of counsel), for respondents. Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maurice E. Muir, J.), entered August 28, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of defendants' motion seeking to dismiss the complaint. ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as abandoned. Plaintiff commenced this action alleging causes of action for, among other things, fraud, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved to, among other things, dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The Civil Court granted the branch of the motion seeking to dismiss the complaint. In his main brief submitted on this appeal, plaintiff failed to raise an issue regarding so much of the order appealed from as granted the branch of defendants' motion seeking to dismiss the complaint and, instead, raised issues regarding a previous order compelling discovery from which plaintiff took no appeal. However, in his reply brief, plaintiff raised arguments relating to the order from which he appealed. The appeal is dismissed as abandoned as plaintiff makes no argument in his main brief with respect to the order appealed from which granted the branch of defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the action. Plaintiff's arguments that his causes of action were sufficiently alleged are not properly before this court, as they were raised for the first time in the reply brief, and we decline to consider those issues (see Matter of Erdey v City of New York, 129 AD3d 546 [2015]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Dellarmo, 128 AD3d 680, 681 [2015]; Eighteen Assoc., LLC v Court St. Pizza, Inc., 66 Misc 3d 148[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50261[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as abandoned. ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and BUGGS, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: December 2, 2022