From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saccheri v. Cathedral Props. Corp.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Nov 20, 2019
177 A.D.3d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2016–03901 Index No. 20017/07

11-20-2019

Leonard SACCHERI, etc., Respondent, v. CATHEDRAL PROPERTIES CORP., et al., Defendants, Cathedral Court Associates, L.P., et al., Appellants.

Rosenberg Fortuna & Laitman, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (David I. Rosenberg and Anthony R. Filosa of counsel), for appellants. Walsh Markus McDougal & DeBellis, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Paul R. McDougal and John R. Yetman of counsel), for respondent.


Rosenberg Fortuna & Laitman, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (David I. Rosenberg and Anthony R. Filosa of counsel), for appellants.

Walsh Markus McDougal & DeBellis, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Paul R. McDougal and John R. Yetman of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SHERI S. ROMAN, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful eviction, the defendants Cathedral Court Associates, L.P., Old Court Realty Corp., and Jacques Blinbaum appeal from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Antonio I. Brandveen, J.), entered April 18, 2016. The order, inter alia, denied the motion of those defendants, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them, and pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend their answer, and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the amended complaint as alleged that Leonard Saccheri was wrongfully evicted from the subject premises based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

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

The appeal must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 ). The issues raised on the appeal are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment, decided herewith ( Cathedral Properties Corp. v. Cathedral Court Associates, L.P., 177 A.D.3d 843, 113 N.Y.S.3d 156, 2019 WL 6139493 ; see CPLR 5501[a][1] ; Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d at 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 ).

MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Saccheri v. Cathedral Props. Corp.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Nov 20, 2019
177 A.D.3d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Saccheri v. Cathedral Props. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Leonard Saccheri, etc., respondent, v. Cathedral Properties Corp., et al.…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Nov 20, 2019

Citations

177 A.D.3d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 8434
110 N.Y.S.3d 563