Maksuta v. Galiatsatos
Decision Date | 19 May 2009 |
Docket Number | 2008-02642. |
Citation | 879 N.Y.S.2d 538,2009 NY Slip Op 04033,62 A.D.3d 841 |
Parties | JOHN MAKSUTA et al., Appellants, v. C. GALIATSATOS, Also Known as CHRISOSTOMOS GALIATSATOS, et al., Appellants, and SORBARA CONSTRUCTION CORP., Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order dated February 6, 2008 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondent.
As a general rule, this Court does not consider an issue on a subsequent appeal which was raised or could have been raised in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to do so (see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750 [1999]; Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350 [1976]). The plaintiffs appealed from the order dated March 7, 2007, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Sorbara Construction Corp. (hereinafter Sorbara) which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, but abandoned that appeal after the Supreme Court, in an order dated February 6, 2008, made, in effect, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the original determination. As a consequence of the plaintiffs' failure timely to perfect their appeal from the order dated March 7, 2007, that appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The better practice would have been for the plaintiffs to withdraw their prior appeal, rather than abandon it. Nonetheless, under the circumstances, we exercise our discretion to review the issues raised on the plaintiffs' appeal from the order made, in effect, upon renewal and reargument (see generally Cesar v Highland Care Ctr., Inc., 37 AD3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Khaimova v. City of N.Y.
...we exercise our discretion to review the issues raised on the appeal from the order made upon reargument ( see Maksuta v. Galiatsatos, 62 A.D.3d 841, 879 N.Y.S.2d 538;Cesar v. Highland Care Ctr., Inc., 37 A.D.3d 393, 829 N.Y.S.2d 236). “Generally, liability for injuries sustained as a resul......
-
Gold v. Crippen
...City of New York, 95 A.D.3d 1280, 1281, 945 N.Y.S.2d 710;Kitt v. Podlofsky, 72 A.D.3d 1030, 1031, 898 N.Y.S.2d 879;Maksuta v. Galiatsatos, 62 A.D.3d 841, 842, 879 N.Y.S.2d 538). The Supreme Court properly granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award at issue here. Crippen failed to......
-
Kitt v. Podlofsky
...we exercise our discretion to review the issue raised on the defendant's appeal from the judgment (see Maksuta v. Galiatsatos, 62 A.D.3d 841, 842, 879 N.Y.S.2d 538; Neuburger v. Sidoruk, 60 A.D.3d 650, 651-652, 875 N.Y.S.2d 144). Striking a defendant's answer is a drastic remedy which is " ......
-
Babcock v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.
...192 A.D.2d 691, 597 N.Y.S.2d 126 ; Mannion v. Lizza Indus., Inc., 127 A.D.2d 567, 568, 511 N.Y.S.2d 366 ; see also Maksuta v. Galiatsatos, 62 A.D.3d 841, 879 N.Y.S.2d 538 ; Huber v. Malone, 229 A.D.2d 469, 645 N.Y.S.2d 526 ).In opposition to the Town's prima facie showing, the plaintiffs fa......