GREATER NY LLC v. 800 JEFFCO CORP (2009)

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lila Gold, J.), entered July 18, 2007, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered August 15, 2007 (see CPLR 5501[c] ).  The judgment, entered pursuant to the July 18, 2007 order which, among other things, granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing, inter alia, plaintiff's third and fourth causes of action, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $626.29.

Appeal dismissed.

In this action, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its first two causes of action and defendant cross-moved, pursuant to CPLR 3211 and 3212, to dismiss the complaint.   By order entered July 18, 2007, the Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion to the extent of awarding it the sum of $626.29 and granted defendant's cross motion to the extent of dismissing, among other things, plaintiff's third and fourth causes of action.   As limited by its brief, plaintiff seeks review of so much of the July 18, 2007 order as granted defendant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's third and fourth causes of action.   A judgment was subsequently entered on August 15, 2007 awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $626.29.

 The right of direct appeal from an intermediate order terminates upon entry of a judgment (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 [1976] ).   However, a notice of appeal from an order directing the entry of judgment shall be deemed to specify a judgment upon that order if it was entered after the service of the notice of appeal (see CPLR 5501[c] ).  An appeal from a judgment brings up for review any non-final order which necessarily affects the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1] ).

 In this case, the portion of the July 18, 2007 order that granted defendant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's third and fourth causes of action necessarily affects the judgment and would be reviewable upon an appeal from the judgment.   However, the record indicates that the Civil Court did not consider any opposition to defendant's cross motion, and plaintiff's motion, which was considered by the court, was only addressed to the first two causes of action.   Consequently, the order, insofar as plaintiff seeks review thereof, must be deemed to have been entered on default.   Accordingly, plaintiff's appeal from the judgment must be dismissed (CPLR 5511;  see Benitez v. Olson, 29 A.D.3d 503, 813 N.Y.S.2d 673 [2006];  Viggiani v. Grodotzke, 306 A.D.2d 273, 760 N.Y.S.2d 337 [2003];  Grabel v. Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc., 19 Misc.3d 136(A), 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50746(U), 2008 WL 942921 [App Term., 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2008];  Maltsev v. New York City Tr. Auth., 19 Misc.3d 127(A), 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50504(U), 2008 WL 711735 [App Term., 2d & 11th Jud. Dists. 2008];  see also James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249, 256 n. 3, 279 N.Y.S.2d 10, 225 N.E.2d 741 [1967] ).