Armstrong v. Adelman Automotive Parts Distribution Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Armstrong v. Adelman Automotive Parts Distribution Corp.

171 A.D.2d 635, 566 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 171 A.D.2d 635 (Armstrong v. Adelman Automotive Parts Distribution Corp.) 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

Armstrong v. Adelman Automotive Parts Distribution Corp., 171 A.D.2d 635, 566 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated April 10, 1989, as conditioned the granting of his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar upon the payment to the defendant of $1,000.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiff perfected this appeal from an intermediate order. We note, however, that a final judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff was entered on December 22, 1989. As a result, the appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). As the plaintiff has perfected his appeal from the judgment, the issues raised on the appeal from the order may be raised on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated April 10, 1989, as conditioned the granting of his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar upon the payment to the defendant of $1,000.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiff perfected this appeal from an intermediate order. We note, however, that a final judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff was entered on December 22, 1989. As a result, the appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). As the plaintiff has perfected his appeal from the judgment, the issues raised on the appeal from the order may be raised on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 635, 566 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-adelman-automotive-parts-distribution-corp-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack