You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Martell v. Dorchester Apt. Corp.

Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 05163Docket: 2020-00772

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; September 14, 2022; New York; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In Martell v. Dorchester Apt. Corp., the Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed an appeal concerning a personal injury lawsuit. The defendants, Dorchester Apt. Corp. and others, appealed an order from the Supreme Court of Kings County, which had denied their motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, stating that the right to a direct appeal from the order had ended with the entry of judgment in the case. The court noted that the issues raised in the appeal from the order were not reviewable in the subsequent appeal from the judgment, as the order did not necessarily affect the judgment. The decision was rendered on September 14, 2022, with Judges Barros, Maltese, Wooten, and Warhit concurring. The order included costs to the respondents.

Legal Issues Addressed

Awarding of Costs on Appeal

Application: The court awarded costs to the respondents as part of its decision to dismiss the appeal.

Reasoning: The order included costs to the respondents.

Finality of Judgment and Right to Appeal

Application: The court ruled that the right to directly appeal from an order ends once a judgment is entered in the case.

Reasoning: The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, stating that the right to a direct appeal from the order had ended with the entry of judgment in the case.

Reviewability of Orders on Appeal

Application: The court held that issues raised in an appeal from an order are not reviewable in a subsequent appeal from the judgment if the order did not affect the judgment.

Reasoning: The court noted that the issues raised in the appeal from the order were not reviewable in the subsequent appeal from the judgment, as the order did not necessarily affect the judgment.