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.

Bond v. Turner

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

February 14, 2014

Geoffrey Bond AND SALLY T. BOOTEY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
Thomas A. Turner, MICHELLE M. TURNER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND VILLAGE OF LAKEWOOD, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered July 26, 2012. The judgment, inter alia, directed defendants Thomas A. Turner and Michelle M. Turner to remove certain improvements from a right-of-way and awarded money damages to plaintiff Sally T. Bootey.

DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. WILLETT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (PAUL V. WEBB, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

GOODELL & RANKIN, JAMESTOWN (ANDREW W. GOODELL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CARNI, AND WHALEN, JJ.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: This Court issued an order on a prior appeal in this case (Bond v Turner, 78 A.D.3d 1490, rearg denied 81 A.D.3d 1387), and Thomas A. Turner and Michelle M. Turner (defendants) now appeal from the ensuing judgment issued by Supreme Court. Defendants simultaneously moved in the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal from the judgment, which would bring up for review our nonfinal order on the prior appeal, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the motion for leave to appeal "upon the ground that simultaneous appeals do not lie to both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals" (20 N.Y.3d 904, 904). The Court of Appeals thereafter denied defendants' application for leave to reargue that motion (20 N.Y.3d 1021). Defendants fail to raise any challenge to the judgment, however, and contend only that this Court erred with respect to our order in the prior appeal. Thus, defendants are in effect again moving for leave to reargue with respect to the prior order by which they were aggrieved (see Bond, 78 A.D.3d 1490, rearg denied 81 A.D.3d 1387), inasmuch as they are not further aggrieved by the judgment (see generally Utility Servs. Contr., Inc. v Monroe County Water Auth., 90 A.D.3d 1661, 1663, lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 803). We therefore dismiss defendants' appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5511).


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.