Joseph v. Rubinstein Jewelry Mfg. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. Rubinstein Jewelry Mfg. Co.

18 A.D.3d 614, 794 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5280

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

DecidedMay 16, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 614 (Joseph v. Rubinstein Jewelry Mfg. Co.) 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

Joseph v. Rubinstein Jewelry Mfg. Co., 18 A.D.3d 614, 794 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant [615]*615appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Levine, J.), dated December 2, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Joseph v Rubenstein Jewelry Mfg. Co., 18 AD3d 615 [2005] [decided herewith]). Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Luciano and Lifson, 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 defendant [615]*615appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Levine, J.), dated December 2, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Joseph v Rubenstein Jewelry Mfg. Co., 18 AD3d 615 [2005] [decided herewith]). Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 614, 794 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-rubinstein-jewelry-mfg-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack