Boatwright v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boatwright v. City of Yonkers

183 A.D.2d 867, 586 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7404

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

DecidedMay 26, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 867 (Boatwright v. City of Yonkers) 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

Boatwright v. City of Yonkers, 183 A.D.2d 867, 586 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated July 6, 1990, as upon the plaintiffs’ default in submitting opposition papers to the defendants’ motions, granted those branches of the defendants’ separate motions which were to impose sanctions.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The order under review was entered on default and is, therefore, not appealable (see, CPLR 5511; Flake v Van Wagenen, 54 NY 25, 27; Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Serrano, 181 AD2d 731; Matter of Mitchell v Morris, 177 AD2d 579; Calvagno v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 110 AD2d 741; Montalvo v Key Indus., 98 AD2d 767; see also, 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5511.10; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 70.33). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Ritter and Copertino, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated July 6, 1990, as upon the plaintiffs’ default in submitting opposition papers to the defendants’ motions, granted those branches of the defendants’ separate motions which were to impose sanctions.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The order under review was entered on default and is, therefore, not appealable (see, CPLR 5511; Flake v Van Wagenen, 54 NY 25, 27; Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Serrano, 181 AD2d 731; Matter of Mitchell v Morris, 177 AD2d 579; Calvagno v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 110 AD2d 741; Montalvo v Key Indus., 98 AD2d 767; see also, 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5511.10; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 70.33). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 867, 586 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boatwright-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack