Johnson & Cohen, LLP v. Gilberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson & Cohen, LLP v. Gilberg

124 A.D.3d 727, 998 N.Y.S.2d 653

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2015

Docket2011-09604

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 727 (Johnson & Cohen, LLP v. Gilberg) 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

Johnson & Cohen, LLP v. Gilberg, 124 A.D.3d 727, 998 N.Y.S.2d 653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover legal fees, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Jamieson, J.), dated September 12, 2011, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs renewed motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover on an account stated.

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

In an order dated September 12, 2011, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the plaintiffs renewed motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover on an account stated. In an order dated April 16, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs separate motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s counterclaims. On June 5, 2013, the Supreme Court, upon the orders, entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The appeal from the intermediate order dated September 12, 2011, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in this action, and, by decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 27, 2014, the appeal from that judgment was dismissed as abandoned, based on the appellant’s failure to perfect the appeal (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]; Citibank, N.A. v Swiatkowski, 98 AD3d 554, 554-555 [2012]; Zavelin v Greenberg, 49 AD3d 635 [2008]; Smith v Orange, 35 AD3d 438 [2006]).

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover legal fees, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Jamieson, J.), dated September 12, 2011, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs renewed motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover on an account stated.

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

In an order dated September 12, 2011, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the plaintiffs renewed motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover on an account stated. In an order dated April 16, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs separate motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s counterclaims. On June 5, 2013, the Supreme Court, upon the orders, entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The appeal from the intermediate order dated September 12, 2011, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in this action, and, by decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 27, 2014, the appeal from that judgment was dismissed as abandoned, based on the appellant’s failure to perfect the appeal (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]; Citibank, N.A. v Swiatkowski, 98 AD3d 554, 554-555 [2012]; Zavelin v Greenberg, 49 AD3d 635 [2008]; Smith v Orange, 35 AD3d 438 [2006]).

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 727, 998 N.Y.S.2d 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-cohen-llp-v-gilberg-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack