NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v. Prol Properties Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v. Prol Properties Corp.

308 A.D.2d 478, 764 N.Y.S.2d 645

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 308 A.D.2d 478 (NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v. Prol Properties Corp.) 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

NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v. Prol Properties Corp., 308 A.D.2d 478, 764 N.Y.S.2d 645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the defendant Prol Properties Corp., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated June 8, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to amend the caption to add Robert Rampulla and Pamella Rampulla as defendants.

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of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of a judgment in the action entered February 27, 2003, which was superseded by the entry of an amended judgment on March 26, 2003 (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the amended judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v Prol Props. Corp., 308 AD2d 478 [2003] [decided herewith]). Altman, J.P., Florio, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the defendant Prol Properties Corp., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated June 8, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to amend the caption to add Robert Rampulla and Pamella Rampulla as defendants.

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of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of a judgment in the action entered February 27, 2003, which was superseded by the entry of an amended judgment on March 26, 2003 (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the amended judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v Prol Props. Corp., 308 AD2d 478 [2003] [decided herewith]). Altman, J.P., Florio, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 478, 764 N.Y.S.2d 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nyctl-1998-1-trust-v-prol-properties-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack