From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doe v. Rosenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 23, 1991
176 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

September 23, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Pursuant to CPLR 5016 (c), the plaintiff may enter a final judgment in this action without a further order of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the motion was unnecessary.

We note parenthetically that while the plaintiff may enter a judgment herein, an appeal therefrom would not permit review of a prior order dated March 1, 1989, which granted the defendant Hal S. Rosenthal's motion to dismiss the complaint, since the appeal from that order was dismissed for lack of prosecution (see, Bray v. Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350, 355; Matter of Blasy, 170 A.D.2d 451; Montalvo v. Nel Taxi Corp., 114 A.D.2d 494; Matter of Smith v McManus Sons, 101 A.D.2d 890). Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Doe v. Rosenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 23, 1991
176 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Doe v. Rosenthal

Case Details

Full title:JOHN DOE, Appellant, v. HAL S. ROSENTHAL et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Sep 23, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Gelles v. Sauvage

Thus, "[i]t is only the complex and non-monetary judgments that are subject to a different procedure under…