Sperry v. Papastamos

• Decision Date: 16 July 1993
• Docket Number: No. 1,1
• Citation: 601 N.Y.S.2d 720,195 A.D.2d 1031
• Parties: Karen C. SPERRY, f/k/a Karen C. Sanderson, and Karlin, Ltd., Respondents, v. Angelo PAPASTAMOS, Appellant. Appeal
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 720

601 N.Y.S.2d 720

195 A.D.2d 1031

Karen C. SPERRY, f/k/a Karen C. Sanderson, and Karlin, Ltd. Respondents, v. Angelo PAPASTAMOS, Appellant. Appeal No. 1.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

July 16, 1993.

Offermann, Mahoney, Cassano, Pigott, Greco & Whalen by Eugene Pigott, Jr., Buffalo, for appellant.

Blair & Roach by David Stern, Buffalo, for respondents.

Before DENMAN, P.J., and PINE, LAWTON, BOOMER and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for defendant's alleged breach of three interrelated contracts: for purchase of real property; for purchase of an ice cream parlor business operated thereon; and for lease of the real property for a period of 18 months pending the sale. Defendant appeals from three directives of Supreme Court: the first granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on the issue of liability; the second awarded plaintiffs judgment of $48,901.29 based on the prior order of summary judgment and a stipulation on damages; and the third denied defendant's postjudgment motion to reargue and renew the prior motion pursuant to CPLR 2221, and to vacate the prior judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 on the grounds of plaintiffs' alleged misrepresentations to the court and defense counsel's alleged lack of authority to stipulate to damages.

At the outset, we reject plaintiffs' argument that defendant's appeal is untimely. An appeal from a final judgment brings up for review any nonfinal order that necessarily affects the final judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a]. In these circumstances, proper appellate review lies from the judgment (see, Matter of Laborers Intl. Union of N. Am., Local 210, AFL-CIO v. Shevlin-Manning, Inc., 147 A.D.2d 977, 537 N.Y.S.2d 720). Here, although defendant did not timely appeal from the nonfinal order of summary judgment, it is deemed subsumed in the final judgment, from which defendant timely appealed. The appeal from the intermediate order is therefore dismissed.

The court properly granted summary judgment on liability to plaintiffs. They demonstrated as a matter of law that defendant breached the lease and the interdependent realty and equipment purchase agreements by assigning his rights under the agreements to a third party without obtaining plaintiffs' approval, by defaulting in his monthly rent payments, and by repudiating his obligations under all three contracts based on his purported assignment of his obligations. In opposition to plaintiffs' motion, defendant failed to raise triable questions of fact. His defenses are patently lacking in merit, and the court acted properly in summarily rejecting them. Defendant misconstrues the lease in arguing that he was current in his rent obligations because he had "prepaid rent" of $5,000. The lease required defendant to pay the $5,000 in addition to, not in lieu of, his monthly rent of $700. There is no reasonable interpretation of the lease under which defendant can claim credit for his prepaid rent against his monthly rental obligation.

Similarly, the court properly rejected defendant's second affirmative defense, which was that plaintiffs misrepresented the condition of the equipment and breached their express warranty that it was in good condition, thereby justifying defendant's breach. In the equipment purchase agreement, plaintiffs guaranteed only that the equipment would be in good operating order and usable condition and in a good state of maintenance and repair on the date of the agreement, April 9, 1990. The warranty did not extend to future performance. The "assignee's" EBT testimony, to the effect that the equipment broke down while she was in possession...