East Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

East Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc.

2019 NY Slip Op 419

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 2019

DocketIndex No. 1113/07

StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 419 (East Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc.) 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

East Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

East Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist. v Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 00419)

East Hampton Union Free Sch. Dist. v Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc.

2019 NY Slip Op 00419

Decided on January 23, 2019

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 23, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P.
SHERI S. ROMAN
SANDRA L. SGROI
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

2016-01972
(Index No. 1113/07)

[*1]East Hampton Union Free School District, appellant,

v

Sandpebble Builders, Inc., respondent.

Pinks, Lipshie, White & Nemeth, Hauppauge, NY (Steven G. Pinks and Jonathan W. Lipshie of counsel), for appellant.

Esseks, Hefter, Angel, Di Talia & Pasca, LLP, Riverhead, NY (Stephen R. Angel, Anthony C. Pasca, and Amanda Star Frazer of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that a contract dated April 2002 is void and unenforceable, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jerry Garguilo, J.), dated January 15, 2016. The order denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that the damages the defendant could recover on its first counterclaim were limited pursuant to paragraphs 9.6 and 9.7 of the April 2002 contract.

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

The appeal must be dismissed, as the right of direct appeal from the order terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho , 39 NY2d 241, 248).

AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and LASALLE, JJ., concur.

ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court

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