Opinion
No. 2015–00485 Q C.
05-19-2017
Ada OPARAJI, Appellant, and Maurice Oparaji, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, N.A., doing business as Citimortage, Inc., also known as Citigroup, Respondent.
Ada Oparaji, appellant pro se. Akerman Senterfitt, LLP, for respondent (no brief filed).
Ada Oparaji, appellant pro se.
Akerman Senterfitt, LLP, for respondent (no brief filed).
Present: MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, JJ.
Appeals from orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, entered July 17, 2012 (Anna Culley, J.), August 18, 2014 (Jodi Orlow, J.), November 28, 2014 (Jodi Orlow, J.) and April 27, 2015 (Sally E. Unger, J.), respectively. The order entered July 17, 2012, insofar as appealed from by plaintiff Ada Oparaji, granted on default the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was asserted by plaintiff Ada Oparaji and denied the branch of a cross motion by plaintiff Maurice Oparaji seeking to preclude defendant from offering certain evidence at trial. The order entered August 18, 2014, insofar as appealed from by plaintiff Ada Oparaji, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was asserted by plaintiff Maurice Oparaji and denied so much of a motion as was made by plaintiff Ada Oparaji as sought to preclude defendant from offering certain evidence at trial. The order entered November 28, 2014, insofar as appealed from, denied so much of a motion as was made by plaintiff Ada Oparaji seeking leave to renew and reargue her opposition to defendant's prior motion for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was asserted by plaintiff Maurice Oparaji. The order entered April 27, 2015, insofar as appealed from, denied so much of a motion as was made by plaintiff Ada Oparaji seeking to compel defendant to produce certain documents.
ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed.
Plaintiff Ada Oparaji did not submit any papers in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment giving rise to the July 17, 2012 order, and there is no indication that she opposed the motion orally. Thus, her appeal from the portion of that order that granted defendant's motion as against her must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511 ; Benitez v. Olson, 29 AD3d 503 [2006] ; Viggiani v. Grodotzke, 306 A.D.2d 273 [2003] ; see also M & C Bros., Inc. v. Torum, 75 AD3d 869 [2010] ; cf. Matter of 144 Stuyvesant, LLC v. Goncalves, 119 AD3d 695 [2014] ). Plaintiff Ada Oparaji is not aggrieved by the portion of that order that denied the branch of a cross motion by plaintiff Maurice Oparaji seeking to preclude defendant from offering evidence at trial, as she did not join in that cross motion (see CPLR 5511 ; Rinaldi v. Evenflo Co., Inc., 62 AD3d 856 [2009] ). Plaintiff Ada Oparaji is similarly not aggrieved by so much of the August 18, 2014 order as granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was asserted by plaintiff Maurice Oparaji, or by so much of the order entered November 28, 2014 as denied her leave to renew and reargue her opposition to that summary judgment motion (see CPLR 5511 ; Rinaldi v. Evenflo Co., Inc., 62 AD3d 856 ). So much of the appeal as is from the portion of the order entered August 18, 2014 as denied plaintiff Ada Oparaji's motion to preclude defendant from offering certain evidence at trial is dismissed as academic, as so much of the complaint as was asserted by her had been dismissed (see Livny v. Rotella, 305 A.D.2d 377 [2003] ). Plaintiff Ada Oparaji's appeal from the order entered April 27, 2015 is dismissed as abandoned, as her brief makes no argument with respect to that order.
PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.