Opinion
CA 03-00679
October 2, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Brown, J.), entered July 19, 2002, which after a bench trial granted judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the amended complaint.
HAROLD B. FINK, JR., P.C., PORT ALLEGANY, PENNSYLVANIA (HAROLD B. FINK, JR., OF COUNSEL), AND RAYMOND W. BULSON, PORTVILLE, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
GERALD J. VELLA, SPRINGVILLE, FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: WISNER, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendants judgment dismissing the amended complaint after a bench trial. Although the order is subsumed in the judgment that was subsequently entered and the appeal properly lies from the judgment, not the order ( see Chase Manhattan Bank v. Roberts Roberts, 63 A.D.2d 566, 567), in the exercise of our discretion, we treat the notice of appeal as one taken from the judgment ( see CPLR 5520 [c]; Hughes v. Nussbaumer, Clarke Velzy, 140 A.D.2d 988).
Supreme Court properly granted judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the amended complaint. Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in its rulings regarding the scope of cross-examination of plaintiff at trial ( see Feldsberg v. Nitschke, 49 N.Y.2d 636, 643, rearg denied 50 N.Y.2d 1059).