Sargent v. Klein & Eversoll, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sargent v. Klein & Eversoll, Inc.

31 A.D.3d 736, 819 N.Y.S.2d 546

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

DecidedJuly 25, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 A.D.3d 736 (Sargent v. Klein & Eversoll, 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

Sargent v. Klein & Eversoll, Inc., 31 A.D.3d 736, 819 N.Y.S.2d 546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Klein & Eversoll, Inc., ap[737]*737peals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Eerier, J.), dated April 4, 2005, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated January 28, 2005, denying its motion to vacate an order of the same court dated October 15, 2004, granting the motions of the plaintiff and the defendants Pinewood Estates Partners, LLC, and Pinewood Estates Management, LLC, for leave to enter judgment against it upon its default in answering.

Ordered that appeal is dismissed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

The appeal from so much of the order dated April 4, 2005, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated January 28, 2005, must be dismissed. As a general rule, we do not consider an issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although we have inherent jurisdiction to do so (see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750 [1999]; Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350 [1976]). Klein & Eversoll appealed from the order dated January 28, 2005, and that appeal (Appellate Division Docket No. 2005-02260) was dismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 10, 2005, for failure to perfect in accordance with the rules of this Court. The dismissal of that appeal constituted an adjudication on the merits with respect to all issues which could have been reviewed therein, and we find no basis to review the same issues on this appeal (see Almonte v Western Beef, Inc., 21 AD3d 514, 517 [2005]; Tri-State Sol-Aire Corp. v Martin Assoc., 7 AD3d 514, 515 [2004]; Azor v Delva, 306 AD2d 234, 235 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein and Fisher, 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, the defendant Klein & Eversoll, Inc., ap[737]*737peals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Eerier, J.), dated April 4, 2005, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated January 28, 2005, denying its motion to vacate an order of the same court dated October 15, 2004, granting the motions of the plaintiff and the defendants Pinewood Estates Partners, LLC, and Pinewood Estates Management, LLC, for leave to enter judgment against it upon its default in answering.

Ordered that appeal is dismissed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

The appeal from so much of the order dated April 4, 2005, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated January 28, 2005, must be dismissed. As a general rule, we do not consider an issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although we have inherent jurisdiction to do so (see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750 [1999]; Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350 [1976]). Klein & Eversoll appealed from the order dated January 28, 2005, and that appeal (Appellate Division Docket No. 2005-02260) was dismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 10, 2005, for failure to perfect in accordance with the rules of this Court. The dismissal of that appeal constituted an adjudication on the merits with respect to all issues which could have been reviewed therein, and we find no basis to review the same issues on this appeal (see Almonte v Western Beef, Inc., 21 AD3d 514, 517 [2005]; Tri-State Sol-Aire Corp. v Martin Assoc., 7 AD3d 514, 515 [2004]; Azor v Delva, 306 AD2d 234, 235 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 736, 819 N.Y.S.2d 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sargent-v-klein-eversoll-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack