From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nava Indus. v. Runge

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Jan 30, 2020
66 Misc. 3d 141 (N.Y. App. Term 2020)

Opinion

2018-2312 N C

01-30-2020

NAVA INDUSTRIES, Doing Business as Riteway Trunk & Auto, Respondent, v. Richard RUNGE, Doing Business as Runge Design, Appellant.

Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman, LLP (Anthony W. Cummings of counsel), for appellant. Meyers Saxon & Cole, Esqs. (Richard H. Byrnes of counsel), for respondent.


Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman, LLP (Anthony W. Cummings of counsel), for appellant.

Meyers Saxon & Cole, Esqs. (Richard H. Byrnes of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT: THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, JERRY GARGUILO, JJ.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this breach of contract action, defendant failed to appear on an adjourned court date. The District Court marked the case file "liability for plaintiff" and, in effect, scheduled an inquest on damages (see Uniform Rules for Dist Cts [ 22 NYCRR] § 212.14 [b] [1] ). Defendant appeals from an order of the District Court dated September 12, 2018 denying his motion to, among other things, open his default.

The appeal must be dismissed, as the right of direct appeal from the order terminated with the entry of a judgment in December 2018 after the inquest (see Matter of Aho , 39 NY2d 241 [1976] ).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nava Indus. v. Runge

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Jan 30, 2020
66 Misc. 3d 141 (N.Y. App. Term 2020)
Case details for

Nava Indus. v. Runge

Case Details

Full title:Nava Industries, Doing Business as Riteway Trunk & Auto, Respondent, v…

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Jan 30, 2020

Citations

66 Misc. 3d 141 (N.Y. App. Term 2020)
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 50156
121 N.Y.S.3d 506