TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dingle v. Pergament Home Centers, Inc.

Lucinda Dingle v. Pergament Home Centers, Inc., Sued Herein as Pergament

Dingle v. Pergament Home Centers, Inc., 141 A.D.2d 798 (1988)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 27, 1988
Citations
141 A.D.2d 798530 N.Y.S.2d 251988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7165

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), dated June 23, 1987, as, upon granting its motion to vacate its *799 default in appearing and answering, directed it to pay the plaintiffs attorneys the sum of $500.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the defendant’s time to pay the $500 is extended until 30 days after the service upon it of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Supreme Court acted properly in imposing a monetary sanction upon the defendant as a condition of vacating its prior default (see, Berlin v Schlotthauer, 117 AD2d 768 ; Mineroff v Macy’s & Co., 97 AD2d 535 ).

The defendant’s claim that the Supreme Court acted improperly in conditioning its vacatur order upon the defendant’s waiver óf its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is not properly before this court by reason of the fact that its notice of appeal specifically limited the appeal to that part of the order which imposed monetary sanctions on the defendant. "An appeal from only part of an order constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal from the other parts of that order” (Royal v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 AD2d 132, 133 ; CPLR 5515 [1]). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1989: 11993: 11995: 12003: 12005: 119892026peak 1989 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cleary v. Reliance Fuel Oil Associates, Inc.17 A.D.3d 503 (2005)
  2. Beauchamp v. Riverbay Corp.156 A.D.2d 172 (1989)
  3. Sugar Creek Stores, Inc. v. Pitts198 A.D.2d 833 (1993)
  4. Charles v. Meyer307 A.D.2d 272 (2003)
  5. Soyer v. Perricone222 A.D.2d 496 (1995)

Most recent

  1. Cleary v. Reliance Fuel Oil Associates, Inc.17 A.D.3d 503 (2005)
  2. Charles v. Meyer307 A.D.2d 272 (2003)
  3. Soyer v. Perricone222 A.D.2d 496 (1995)
  4. Sugar Creek Stores, Inc. v. Pitts198 A.D.2d 833 (1993)
  5. Beauchamp v. Riverbay Corp.156 A.D.2d 172 (1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Royal v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 A.D.2d 132 (1986) 45
Mineroff v. R. H. Macy's & Co., 97 A.D.2d 535 (1983) 37
Berlin v. Schlotthauer, 117 A.D.2d 768 (1986) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list