Sunrise Plaza Associates v. International Summit Equities Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sunrise Plaza Associates v. International Summit Equities Corp.

288 A.D.2d 299, 733 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10981

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 299 (Sunrise Plaza Associates v. International Summit Equities 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

Sunrise Plaza Associates v. International Summit Equities Corp., 288 A.D.2d 299, 733 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to enforce the terms of a cross-[300]*300easement agreement, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Eerier, J.), entered June 26, 1998, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add a fifth cause of action alleging unjust enrichment, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for a protective order against certain discovery demands.

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed, with costs to the defendant.

The appeal and cross 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). The issues raised on the appeal and cross appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Sunrise Plaza Assocs. v International Summit Equities Corp., 288 AD2d 300 [decided herewith]). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to enforce the terms of a cross-[300]*300easement agreement, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Eerier, J.), entered June 26, 1998, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add a fifth cause of action alleging unjust enrichment, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for a protective order against certain discovery demands.

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed, with costs to the defendant.

The appeal and cross 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). The issues raised on the appeal and cross appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Sunrise Plaza Assocs. v International Summit Equities Corp., 288 AD2d 300 [decided herewith]). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 299, 733 N.Y.S.2d 619, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunrise-plaza-associates-v-international-summit-equities-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack