East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v. New York Schs. Ins. Reciprocal

2017 NY Slip Op 3484
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 3, 2017
Docket2013-11275
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3484 (East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v. New York Schs. Ins. Reciprocal) 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 Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v. New York Schs. Ins. Reciprocal, 2017 NY Slip Op 3484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v New York Schs. Ins. Reciprocal (2017 NY Slip Op 03484)
East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v New York Schs. Ins. Reciprocal
2017 NY Slip Op 03484
Decided on May 3, 2017
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 May 3, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
HECTOR D. LASALLE
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2013-11275
(Index No. 600963/13)

[*1]East Ramapo Central School District, respondent,

v

New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal, appellant.


Miranda Sambursky Slone Sklarin Verveniotis, LLP, Mineola, NY (Steven Verveniotis and Todd M. Hellman of counsel), for appellant.

Bingham McCutchen, LLP, New York, NY (David J. Butler, Robert C. Stillwell, Randall M. Levine, and Stephanie Schuster of counsel), and Minerva & D'Agostino, P.C., Valley Stream, NY (Albert D'Agostino of counsel), for respondent (one brief filed).



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stephen A. Bucaria, J.), entered October 22, 2013.

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 the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal and cross appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the companion appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v New York Schs. Ins. Reciprocal, _____ AD3d _____ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2015-06197, 2016-03072; decided herewith]).

LEVENTHAL, J.P., MALTESE, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, 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

Related

In re Aho
347 N.E.2d 647 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 3484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-ramapo-cent-sch-dist-v-new-york-schs-ins-reciprocal-nyappdiv-2017.