Nesterczuk v. Goldin Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nesterczuk v. Goldin Management, Inc.

77 A.D.3d 799, 909 N.Y.S.2d 377

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 799 (Nesterczuk v. Goldin Management, 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

Nesterczuk v. Goldin Management, Inc., 77 A.D.3d 799, 909 N.Y.S.2d 377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Alisa Construction Co., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), entered June 28, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

This 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 Nesterczuk v Goldin Mgt., Inc., 77 AD3d 800 [2010] [decided herewith]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Alisa Construction Co., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), entered June 28, 2006, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

This 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 Nesterczuk v Goldin Mgt., Inc., 77 AD3d 800 [2010] [decided herewith]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 799, 909 N.Y.S.2d 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesterczuk-v-goldin-management-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack