From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dana Grogan v. Gamber Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 23, 2010
78 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 3686.

November 23, 2010.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 29, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries, denied plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) for relief from a judgment dismissing their complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Greenberg Merola, LLP, New York (Hayley Greenberg of counsel), for appellants.

Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young Yagerman, P.C., New York (Louise M. Cherkis of counsel), for respondents.

Fotopoulos, Rosenblatt Green, New York (Dimitrios C. Fotopoulos of counsel), for appellant.

Abrams, Gorelick, Friedman Jacobson, P.C., New York (Dennis J. Monaco of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Concur — Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.


On December 10, 2009, this Court dismissed, for failure to perfect, plaintiffs' consolidated appeal from (1) the September 19, 2008 judgment (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), dismissing their complaint pursuant to a directive (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.) that judgment dismissing the complaint be entered because of their failure to proceed to trial, and (2) the February 24, 2009 order (Judith J. Gische, J.), denying plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) for relief from the judgment because of, inter alia, their failure to provide affidavits of merit. In July 2009, plaintiffs again moved for relief from the judgment, this time submitting affidavits of merit. In the order on appeal, the court denied the motion because, inter alia, plaintiffs failed to offer "any explanation why the affidavits were not presented on the original motion."

An appeal that has been dismissed for failure to prosecute bars, on the merits, a subsequent appeal as to all questions that could have been raised on the earlier appeal had it been perfected ( Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350, 353-355; Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750, 754, 755-756). Thus, on this appeal plaintiffs may not challenge the judgment dismissing their action or the denial of their motion for relief from that judgment. As this is the only relief plaintiffs seek, the appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Dana Grogan v. Gamber Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 23, 2010
78 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Dana Grogan v. Gamber Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DANA GROGAN et al., Appellants, v. GAMBER CORPORATION, Doing Business as…

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

Date published: Nov 23, 2010

Citations

78 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 8633
911 N.Y.S.2d 352

Citing Cases

Kats v. Agosto

By failing to discuss the issue of renewal in her appellate brief, defendant has abandoned any challenge to…

Kats v. Agosto

By failing to discuss the issue of renewal in her appellate brief, defendant has abandoned any challenge to…