Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Juan Montero and Jeremiah Aguirre, An Infant Over the Age of Fourteen v. Seema Corp.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


January 28, 2011

JUAN MONTERO AND JEREMIAH AGUIRRE, AN INFANT OVER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN,
BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, GUSTAVO AGUIRRE,
APPELLANTS,
v.
SEEMA CORP., KULWANT SINGH, LUIS HOLGUIN AND ANGEL M. BURGOS,
RESPONDENTS.

Montero v Seema Corp.

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 28, 2011

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and GOLIA, JJ

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Lee A. Mayersohn, J.), entered December 4, 2008. The order denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew defendants' prior motions for summary judgment and, upon renewal, to deny defendants' motions.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Defendants Seema Corp. and Kulwant Singh and defendants Luis Holguin and Angel M. Burgos filed respective motions, each with a return date of September 4, 2007, seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs did not sustain serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiffs opposed defendants' motions and, by order entered January 11, 2008, the Civil Court granted the motions.

Plaintiffs subsequently moved for leave to renew defendants' prior motions for summary judgment. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion, and, by order entered December 4, 2008, the Civil Court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew. Plaintiffs appeal from the December 4, 2008 order. A judgment was subsequently entered on May 18, 2009 dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs have not appealed from the judgment.

The appeal from the order of December 4, 2008 must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in this action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241 [1976]).

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Golia, JJ., concur. Decision

Date: January 28, 2011

20110128

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.