Square Inch Design Corp. v. Leon D. Dematteis Constr. Corp.

2026 NY Slip Op 00279

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: Index No. 600714/22
• Status: Published

Opinion

Square Inch Design Corp. v Leon D. Dematteis Constr. Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 00279)

Square Inch Design Corp. v Leon D. Dematteis Constr. Corp.

2026 NY Slip Op 00279

Decided on January 21, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 21, 2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
WILLIAM G. FORD
LOURDES M. VENTURA
DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.

2024-07141
(Index No. 600714/22)

[*1]Square Inch Design Corp., appellant,

v

Leon D. Dematteis Construction Corporation, respondent.

King & King, LLP, Pelham, NY (Peter M. Kutil of counsel), for appellant.

Westerman Sheehy Samaan & Gillespie, LLP, East Meadow, NY (David Westermann, Jr., and John A. LoNigro of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Timothy S. Driscoll, J.), entered March 26, 2024. The order, in effect, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on the issue of liability on its counterclaim alleging breach of contract.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order entered March 26, 2024, was superseded by an order of the same court dated September 23, 2024, made upon renewal.

After the plaintiff filed its notice of appeal, it moved for leave to renew its opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on the issue of liability on the defendant's counterclaim alleging breach of contract, which had been, in effect, granted in an order entered March 26, 2024. The Supreme Court granted the motion for leave to renew and, upon renewal, adhered to its prior determination in the order entered March 26, 2024, by so-ordered transcript dated September 23, 2024.

The respondent contends that the order entered March 26, 2024, was superseded by the order dated September 23, 2024, made upon renewal, and consequently, the appeal must be dismissed. We agree and dismiss the appeal (see Noga v Duffy, 230 AD3d 592, 592; Green Tree Servicing, LLC v Weiss, 222 AD3d 626, 626).

BARROS, J.P., FORD, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court