Crawford v. Village of Millbrook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crawford v. Village of Millbrook

61 A.D.3d 918, 877 N.Y.S.2d 690

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

DecidedApril 28, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 918 (Crawford v. Village of Millbrook) 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

Crawford v. Village of Millbrook, 61 A.D.3d 918, 877 N.Y.S.2d 690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated March 2, 2007, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal and cross 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 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal and cross appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the same court (Brands, J.), dated October 15, 2007 (see Crawford v Village of Millbrook, 61 AD3d 918 [2009] [decided herewith]; CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Florio and Belen, 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, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated March 2, 2007, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal and cross 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 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal and cross appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the same court (Brands, J.), dated October 15, 2007 (see Crawford v Village of Millbrook, 61 AD3d 918 [2009] [decided herewith]; CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Florio and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 918, 877 N.Y.S.2d 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-village-of-millbrook-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack