Con-Solid Contracting Co. v. Litwak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Con-Solid Contracting Co. v. Litwak

298 A.D.2d 544, 748 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10277

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 544 (Con-Solid Contracting Co. v. Litwak) 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

Con-Solid Contracting Co. v. Litwak, 298 A.D.2d 544, 748 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Harris Litwak and Irving J. Litwak appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Le-Vine, J.), dated June 12, 2001, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [a], [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order 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, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Con-Solid Contr. Co. v Litwak, 298 AD2d 544 [decided herewith]). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Harris Litwak and Irving J. Litwak appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Le-Vine, J.), dated June 12, 2001, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [a], [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order 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, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Con-Solid Contr. Co. v Litwak, 298 AD2d 544 [decided herewith]). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 544, 748 N.Y.S.2d 671, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/con-solid-contracting-co-v-litwak-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack