Marino v. Termini

4 A.D.3d 342, 771 N.Y.S.2d 537
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 2, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 342 (Marino v. Termini) 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
Marino v. Termini, 4 A.D.3d 342, 771 N.Y.S.2d 537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated July 25, 2002, which, among other things, denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants in Action No. 2 upon their alleged default in answering, and so much of an order of the same court dated September 12, 2002, as granted, without opposition, that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Guy Giuliano which was to the dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and (8) insofar as asserted against him in Action No. 2.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 12, 2002, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the aggrieved party (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 25, 2002, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff did not oppose the defendant Guy Giuliano’s cross motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and (8). No appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party (see Adamson v Evans, 283 AD2d 527 [2001]). Thus, the appeal from the order dated September 12, 2002, must be dismissed.

Moreover, under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the alleged default of the defendants in Action No. 2 (see Luna v Luna, 263 AD2d 470 [1999]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.E, Cozier, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Belizaire
2025 NY Slip Op 06353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Antoine
213 A.D.3d 863 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Simms
2018 NY Slip Op 5452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Lansky v. Bate
132 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Baione v. Central Suffolk Hospital
14 A.D.3d 635 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 A.D.3d 342, 771 N.Y.S.2d 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marino-v-termini-nyappdiv-2004.