Opinion
Argued January 25, 1999.
July 18, 2000.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., based on negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 Lab., 240(1), and 241(6), the defendant appeals (1), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Nadel, J.), entered February 2, 1998, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim and granted that branch of the claimants' cross motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action based on a violation of Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1) and on the corresponding derivative claim, and (2) from an interlocutory judgment of the same court dated February 9, 1998, which is in favor of the claimants and against it on the issue of liability on the cause of action based on a violation of Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1) and the corresponding derivative claim.
Jacobowitz, Garfinkel Lesman (Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho, N Y [William D. Buckley] of counsel), for appellant.
Gallagher Gosseen Faller Kaplan Crowley, Garden City, N Y (Michael J. Crowley, David H. Arntsen, and Robert A. Faller of counsel), for respondents.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeals from the order and interlocutory judgment 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). The issues raised on appeal from the order and the interlocutory judgment are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the final judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a][1]; Warren v. State of New York, ___; 274 A.D.2d 472 [Appellate Division Docket No. 1999-01576, decided herewith]).