Hidalgo v. 4-34-68, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hidalgo v. 4-34-68, Inc.

117 A.D.3d 798, 984 N.Y.S.2d 798

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

DecidedMay 14, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 798 (Hidalgo v. 4-34-68, 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

Hidalgo v. 4-34-68, Inc., 117 A.D.3d 798, 984 N.Y.S.2d 798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to enforce a restrictive covenant, the defendant Karen Bryant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated February 8, 2012, as denied those branches of her motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on those causes of action.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

The appeal from the 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 from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the companion appeal from the judgment (see Hildalgo v 4-34-68, Inc., 117 AD3d 798 [2014] [decided herewith]).

Eng, EJ, Rivera, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to enforce a restrictive covenant, the defendant Karen Bryant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated February 8, 2012, as denied those branches of her motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on those causes of action.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

The appeal from the 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 from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the companion appeal from the judgment (see Hildalgo v 4-34-68, Inc., 117 AD3d 798 [2014] [decided herewith]).

Eng, EJ, Rivera, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 798, 984 N.Y.S.2d 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hidalgo-v-4-34-68-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack