Hendryx v. Johnson Boys Ford-Mercury, Inc.

309 A.D.2d 1260, 765 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10213
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 2, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1260 (Hendryx v. Johnson Boys Ford-Mercury, 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
Hendryx v. Johnson Boys Ford-Mercury, Inc., 309 A.D.2d 1260, 765 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Brown, J.), entered July 19, 2002, which after a bench trial granted judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendants judgment dismissing the amended complaint after a bench trial. Although the order is subsumed in the judgment that was subsequently entered and the appeal properly lies from the judgment, not the order (see Chase Manhattan Bank v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567 [1978]), in the exercise of our discretion, we treat the notice of appeal as one taken from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]; Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988 [1988]).

Supreme Court properly granted judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the amended complaint. Contrary to plaintiffs contentions, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in its rulings regarding the scope of cross-examination of plaintiff at trial (see Feldsberg v Nitschke, 49 NY2d 636, 643 [1980], rearg denied 50 NY2d 1059 [1980]). Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

KOVALSKY-CARR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Kovalsky-Carr Electric Supply Co. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance
130 A.D.3d 1534 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
LAZAR, MELISSA v. LAZAR, BARRY D.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Lazar v. Lazar
124 A.D.3d 1242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
309 A.D.2d 1260, 765 N.Y.S.2d 549, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendryx-v-johnson-boys-ford-mercury-inc-nyappdiv-2003.