Barnett v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnett v. Schwartz

46 A.D.3d 587, 846 N.Y.S.2d 921

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 587 (Barnett v. Schwartz) 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

Barnett v. Schwartz, 46 A.D.3d 587, 846 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered April 20, 2005, which denied their motion for an award of prejudgment interest.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from that order are brought up for review and have been considered on the plaintiffs’ cross appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Barnett v Schwartz, 47 AD3d 197 [2007] [decided herewith]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Lifson and Balkin, 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 legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), entered April 20, 2005, which denied their motion for an award of prejudgment interest.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from that order are brought up for review and have been considered on the plaintiffs’ cross appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Barnett v Schwartz, 47 AD3d 197 [2007] [decided herewith]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 587, 846 N.Y.S.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack