Ayala v. Delgado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ayala v. Delgado

303 A.D.2d 286, 755 N.Y.S.2d 617, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2784

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 286 (Ayala v. Delgado) 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

Ayala v. Delgado, 303 A.D.2d 286, 755 N.Y.S.2d 617, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2001, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 4, 2001, which, at a preliminary conference, granted defendants’ oral motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The subject judgment, which was entered pursuant to an order that decided a motion that was not made on notice, is not [287]*287appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; see Courtney v Duo Colony Fuel Corp., 300 AD2d 169 [2002]), and the record is devoid of any subsequent motion to vacate or renew that would have placed the propriety of the dismissal before this Court (see Amerasian Intl. Enters, v Health Care Concepts, 302 AD2d 244 [2003]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.

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

—Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2001, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 4, 2001, which, at a preliminary conference, granted defendants’ oral motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The subject judgment, which was entered pursuant to an order that decided a motion that was not made on notice, is not [287]*287appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; see Courtney v Duo Colony Fuel Corp., 300 AD2d 169 [2002]), and the record is devoid of any subsequent motion to vacate or renew that would have placed the propriety of the dismissal before this Court (see Amerasian Intl. Enters, v Health Care Concepts, 302 AD2d 244 [2003]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 286, 755 N.Y.S.2d 617, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayala-v-delgado-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack