420 East Associates v. Lennon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

420 East Associates v. Lennon

225 A.D.2d 326, 638 N.Y.2d 472, 638 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2084

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 7, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 326 (420 East Associates v. Lennon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

420 East Associates v. Lennon, 225 A.D.2d 326, 638 N.Y.2d 472, 638 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2084 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

On appeal, plaintiff would have this Court modify, first, the order and judgment to have it provide that the dismissal of the complaint, as abandoned, pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), was without prejudice, and, second, to delete from the IAS Court’s decision the language that "plaintiff landlord’s claim against the deceased tenant’s estate has no merit”. Since the judgment is silent as to "prejudice”, it is deemed to be not on the merits (CPLR 5013), and it is without prejudice to the filing of a new action, unless time-barred, and thus, this aspect of the appeal should be dismissed for lack of aggrievement (CPLR 5511). The other aspect of the appeal, taken from a nonappealable paper, also should be dismissed. The offending language, that the action lacks merit, is found only in the court’s decision and not in the order and judgment (CPLR 5512 [a]; compare, Lincoln First Bank v Palmyra Motors, 84 AD2d 670) and cannot be viewed as an affirmed finding of this Court. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On appeal, plaintiff would have this Court modify, first, the order and judgment to have it provide that the dismissal of the complaint, as abandoned, pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), was without prejudice, and, second, to delete from the IAS Court’s decision the language that "plaintiff landlord’s claim against the deceased tenant’s estate has no merit”. Since the judgment is silent as to "prejudice”, it is deemed to be not on the merits (CPLR 5013), and it is without prejudice to the filing of a new action, unless time-barred, and thus, this aspect of the appeal should be dismissed for lack of aggrievement (CPLR 5511). The other aspect of the appeal, taken from a nonappealable paper, also should be dismissed. The offending language, that the action lacks merit, is found only in the court’s decision and not in the order and judgment (CPLR 5512 [a]; compare, Lincoln First Bank v Palmyra Motors, 84 AD2d 670) and cannot be viewed as an affirmed finding of this Court. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 326, 638 N.Y.2d 472, 638 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/420-east-associates-v-lennon-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack