From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schaevitz v. Radomisli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1994
208 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 3, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J., Tanenbaum, J.).


Ordered that the appeals from the orders dated August 4, 1992, and December 24, 1992, are dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment dated February 23, 1993 is reversed, on the law and the facts, and the orders are vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County for the entry of an appropriate judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeals from the intermediate orders 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). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The Supreme Court erred in finding that the plaintiffs satisfied the "due diligence" requirement of CPLR 308 (4) and in sustaining the nail and mail service upon the defendant (see, Serrano v. Pape, 188 A.D.2d 647; Bleier v. Heschel, 128 A.D.2d 662; Kaszovitz v. Weiszman, 110 A.D.2d 117). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schaevitz v. Radomisli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1994
208 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Schaevitz v. Radomisli

Case Details

Full title:TED SCHAEVITZ et al., Respondents, v. AYLIN RADOMISLI, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 3, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 1005