From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davidson Metals Corp. v. Marlo Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 1999
262 A.D.2d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued May 17, 1999

June 28, 1999

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated January 28, 1998, which, after a certification conference, and over their objection, certified the case ready for trial.

Gleich, Siegel Farkas, Great Neck, N.Y. (Stephan B. Gleich and Lara P. Emouna of counsel), for appellants.

Levitt and Cohen, Williston Park, N.Y. (Steven E. Cohen and Matthew David Brozik of counsel), for respondent.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from did not decide a motion made upon notice, and no appeal as of right lies therefrom ( see, Sherwood v. Roper, 237 A.D.2d 275, 276; Matter of Hartman v. Smith, 207 A.D.2d 345, 346). No application has been made for permission to appeal. In light of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed, and we do not consider the merits of the appellants' arguments ( see, CPLR 5701[c]).


Summaries of

Davidson Metals Corp. v. Marlo Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 1999
262 A.D.2d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Davidson Metals Corp. v. Marlo Development

Case Details

Full title:DAVIDSON METALS CORP., respondent, v. MARLO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 28, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
691 N.Y.S.2d 898

Citing Cases

Sutter v. Wakefern Food Corp.

The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion and, in effect, denied the plaintiff's motion as academic.…

Williams v. City of White Plains

The appellant's motion violated the rule against successive motions for summary judgment ( see Klein v.…