Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Linda Cohn, appellant, v. William S. Cohn, respondent.
Argued-June 7, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (LaMarca, J.), dated April 20, 2009, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination in an order dated October 31, 2008, granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the sixth and seventh causes of action in the amended complaint.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
As a general rule, we do not consider issues on a subsequent appeal which were raised or could have been raised in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although this Court has the inherent jurisdiction to do so (see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 N.Y.2d 750; Bray v. Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350). The plaintiff appealed from a prior order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 31, 2008, inter alia, granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the sixth and seventh causes of action in the amended complaint. That appeal (Appellate Division Docket No. 2008-11328) was dismissed by this Court on October 23, 2009, for failure to perfect in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[h] ). This Court has the authority to review the issues raised on the plaintiff's instant appeal from the order made upon reargument in the exercise of our discretion (see Faricelli v. TSS Seedman's, 94 N.Y.2d 772, 774; Tierney v. Drago, 38 AD3d 755; Cesar v. Highland Care Ctr., Inc., 37 AD3d 393; Podbielski v. KMO-361 Realty Assocs., 294 A.D.2d 552, 553). However, under the circumstances of this case, where the defendant failed to provide this Court with an adequate record, we decline to exercise our discretion to review the merits of the instant appeal.
SKELOS, J.P., SANTUCCI, DICKERSON and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2009-06638 (Index No. 201647 /06)
Decided: June 29, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)