Hind v. Palermo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hind v. Palermo

262 A.D.2d 285, 691 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5855

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 285 (Hind v. Palermo) 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

Hind v. Palermo, 262 A.D.2d 285, 691 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), entered June 25, 1998, which, upon an order of the same court, dated December 5, 1997, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $61,000.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the plaintiffs.

It is well settled that a litigant may not raise any issue on a subsequent appeal which was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution (see, Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350; Brosnan v Behette, 243 AD2d 524; Rosen v Rosen, 193 AD2d 661). Here, the defendants appealed from an order dated December 5, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. However, that appeal was dismissed by decision and order of this Court dated October 5, 1998, for failure to perfect. The dismissal for lack of prosecution acts as a bar to the instant appeal which raises the identical issues (see, Bray v Cox, supra, at 353). In any event, the record reveals that the defendants failed to cancel the real [286]*286estate contract at issue in accordance with its substantive and procedural terms. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs for the amount of the down payment (see, Maxton Bldrs. v Lo Galbo, 68 NY2d 373). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), entered June 25, 1998, which, upon an order of the same court, dated December 5, 1997, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $61,000.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the plaintiffs.

It is well settled that a litigant may not raise any issue on a subsequent appeal which was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution (see, Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350; Brosnan v Behette, 243 AD2d 524; Rosen v Rosen, 193 AD2d 661). Here, the defendants appealed from an order dated December 5, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. However, that appeal was dismissed by decision and order of this Court dated October 5, 1998, for failure to perfect. The dismissal for lack of prosecution acts as a bar to the instant appeal which raises the identical issues (see, Bray v Cox, supra, at 353). In any event, the record reveals that the defendants failed to cancel the real [286]*286estate contract at issue in accordance with its substantive and procedural terms. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs for the amount of the down payment (see, Maxton Bldrs. v Lo Galbo, 68 NY2d 373). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 285, 691 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hind-v-palermo-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack