Padden v. Express Housing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Padden v. Express Housing

193 A.D.2d 592, 598 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4542

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

DecidedMay 3, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 592 (Padden v. Express Housing) 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

Padden v. Express Housing, 193 A.D.2d 592, 598 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages based on allegations of fraud involving a deed, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Balbach, J.H.O.), dated April 12, 1990, which, inter alia, declared the subject deed to be valid.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The order appealed from was followed by an order of the same court (Copertino, J.), dated September 10, 1990, which granted summary judgment against the plaintiff, and by a judgment of the same court (Copertino, J.), entered January 18, 1991, which dismissed the complaint. With the issuance of the subsequent judgment, the plaintiff’s right of direct appeal from the order dated April 12, 1990, terminated (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248; Men’s World Outlet v Estate of Steinberg, 101 AD2d 854).

Under the circumstances of this case, we decline, in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, to treat the plaintiff’s notice of appeal as being a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (cf., Men’s World Outlet v Estate of Steinberg, supra). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages based on allegations of fraud involving a deed, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Balbach, J.H.O.), dated April 12, 1990, which, inter alia, declared the subject deed to be valid.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The order appealed from was followed by an order of the same court (Copertino, J.), dated September 10, 1990, which granted summary judgment against the plaintiff, and by a judgment of the same court (Copertino, J.), entered January 18, 1991, which dismissed the complaint. With the issuance of the subsequent judgment, the plaintiff’s right of direct appeal from the order dated April 12, 1990, terminated (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248; Men’s World Outlet v Estate of Steinberg, 101 AD2d 854).

Under the circumstances of this case, we decline, in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, to treat the plaintiff’s notice of appeal as being a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (cf., Men’s World Outlet v Estate of Steinberg, supra). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 592, 598 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padden-v-express-housing-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack