From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zambito v. Catanzaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1999
264 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted June 3, 1999

September 27, 1999

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated March 9, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated April 9, 1998, as dismissed the complaint. The notice of appeal from the order is also deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501[c]).

Patrick F. Moore, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for appellant.

Drake, Sommers, Loeb, Tarshis Catania, P.C., Newburgh, N Y (Stephen J. Gaba and Richard M. Mahon II of counsel), for respondents.

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, and ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order 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 the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501[a][1]).

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action ( see, GTF Mktg. v. Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 N.Y.2d 965; Cohen v. City of New York, 128 A.D.2d 748). The plaintiffs contentions which are raised for the first time on appeal are not properly before this court ( see, Green Point Sav. Bank v. Oppenheim, 217 A.D.2d 571).

S. MILLER, J.P., SANTUCCI, KRAUSMAN, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Zambito v. Catanzaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1999
264 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Zambito v. Catanzaro

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN ZAMBITO, appellant v. CHARLES CATANZARO, et al., respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 27, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
695 N.Y.S.2d 703

Citing Cases

Russell v. B B Industries, Inc.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting…

Norwalk v. J.P. Morgan Co., Incorporated

There is, however, no merit to the plaintiff's alternative contention that he had a continuing possessory…