HARDOON v. KALONAROS (2001)

In an action to recover payment on a promissory note, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated May 16, 2000, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated August 9, 2000, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $75,000.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647).   The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a][1] ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the doctrine of res judicata does not bar the litigation on the merits of the plaintiff's action to recover payment on a promissory note.   The plaintiff's claim in this action is independent of his prior claims in a Federal action relating to the defendant's alleged tortious conduct in causing the breakup of the plaintiff's medical practice (see, Coliseum Tower Assocs. v. County of Nassau, 217 A.D.2d 387, 637 N.Y.S.2d 972;  cf., Smith v. Russell Sage Coll., 54 N.Y.2d 185, 445 N.Y.S.2d 68, 429 N.E.2d 746).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.