From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 30, 2001
285 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted January 5, 2001.

July 30, 2001.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Philip Puma, Rose Puma, and Brikar Realty, Ltd., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated August 31, 1999, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to restore the action to the trial calendar and to add Anna Puma and 2365 A J Catering, Inc., as additional defendants.

Anthony J. Sabino, Bethpage, N.Y., for appellants and for defendants Anna Puma and 2365 A J Catering, Inc.

Russ Russ, P.C. (Ira Levine of counsel), Massapequa, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to add Anna Puma and 2365 A J Catering, Inc., as additional defendants is dismissed, as the appellants are not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see, CPLR 5511; Coffey v. Brodsky, 278 A.D.2d 191); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appellants' brief purports to raise arguments on behalf of the defendants Anna Puma and 2365 A J Catering, Inc. However, those defendants did not take an appeal and, accordingly, any arguments raised on their behalf have not been considered.

Contrary to the appellants' assertions, CPLR 3404 does not apply in this instance, as no note of issue was filed (see, Perez v. Gerardi, A.D.2d [2d Dept., July 2, 2001]; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., A.D.2d [2d Dept., May 14, 2001]). In any event, the operation of CPLR 3404 was stayed pending the resolution of a bankruptcy proceeding involving the defendant Philip Puma, which was commenced in 1990 and was pending in 1995 when this action was allegedly dismissed (see, 11 U.S.C. — 362; Klein v. Rauschman, 67 A.D.2d 902). The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 30, 2001
285 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma

Case Details

Full title:LDV ENTERPRISES, INC., respondent, v. PHILIP PUMA, ET AL., appellants, ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 30, 2001

Citations

285 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
728 N.Y.S.2d 671

Citing Cases

Yanovsky v. 833 Flatbush

Before: Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal from so much of the…

LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma

The issue raised on this appeal is whether the amount of interest due the plaintiff could be limited on the…