Alfieri v. Empire Beef Co., 41 A.D.3d 1313 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Alfieri v. Empire Beef Co., 41 A.D.3d 1313 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Dumond v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (nyappdiv, 2018-11-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dumond v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Thus, dismissal of the instant appeal is also warranted on that ground ( see Rubeo , 93 NY2d at 757 ; Bray , 38 NY2d at 355 ; Madison Realty Capital, L.P. v Broken Angel, LLC , 107 AD3d 766 , 767 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 866 [2013], lv dismissed 21 NY3d 1069 [2013]; Grogan , 78 AD3d at 571 ; Alfieri v Empire Beef Co., Inc. , 41 AD3d 1313, 1313 [4th Dept 2007]; Frey v Parsons , 291 AD2d 837, 837 [4th Dept 2002]).
discussed Cited "see" Chiappone v. William Penn Life Insurance
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
To the extent that plaintiff advances contentions relating to the prior order denying her motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, we note that plaintiffs appeal from that order was deemed abandoned and dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1000.12 (b) for failure to perfect it. “[A] prior dismissal for want of prosecution acts as a bar to a subsequent appeal as to all questions that were presented on the earlier appeal” (Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350, 353 [1976]; see Alfieri v Empire Beef Co., Inc., 41 AD3d 1313 [2007]), and we …
discussed Cited "see" Chiappone v. William Penn Life Insurance
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
To the extent that plaintiff advances contentions relating to the prior order denying her motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, we note that plaintiffs appeal from that order was deemed abandoned and dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1000.12 (b) for failure to perfect it. “[A] prior dismissal for want of prosecution acts as a bar to a subsequent appeal as to all questions that were presented on the earlier appeal” (Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350, 353 [1976]; see Alfieri v Empire Beef Co., Inc., 41 AD3d 1313 [2007]), and we …
discussed Cited "see" CHIAPPONE, GINA M. v. WILLIAM PENN LIFE INS. CO. OF N.Y.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
To the extent that plaintiff advances contentions relating to the prior order denying her motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, we note that plaintiff’s appeal from that order was deemed abandoned and dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1000.12 (b) for failure to perfect it. “[A] prior dismissal for want of prosecution acts as a bar to a subsequent appeal as to all questions that were presented on the earlier appeal” (Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350, 353 ; see Alfieri v Empire Beef Co., Inc., 41 AD3d 1313 ), and we decline t…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph Alfieri
v.
Empire Beef Co., Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 8, 2007.
41 A.D.3d 1313
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

Appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered November 1, 2004 in a breach of contract action. The judgment awarded plaintiff Joseph Alfieri the sum of $649,890.72 and awarded plaintiff Salvatore DiPerna the sum of $649,890.72 as against defendant Statewide Food Service, Inc.

It is hereby ordered that said appeals be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendants Empire Beef Co., Inc. (Empire) and Statewide Food Service, Inc. (Statewide) each appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiffs a sum of money as against Statewide. That judgment was entered pursuant to an order granting plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment against Statewide. The record establishes that Empire had responded to the cross motion by stating that it took no position in support of or in opposition to the cross motion. Empire therefore is not aggrieved by the judgment, and we dismiss its appeal from it (see Aronov v Regency Gardens Apts. Corp., 34 AD3d 404 [2006]; Whiteman v Yeshiva & Mesivta Torah Temimah, 255 AD2d 378 [1998]; see generally CPLR 5511). We also dismiss Statewide’s appeal from the judgment. Statewide took an appeal from the order granting plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment, but the appeal was subsequently deemed abandoned and dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1000.12 (b) based upon Statewide’s failure to perfect it. “[A] prior dismissal for want of prosecution acts as a bar to a subsequent appeal as to all questions that were presented on the earlier appeal” (Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350, 353 [1976]). We decline to exercise our discretion to review the merits of Statewide’s appeal (see Combier v Anderson, 34 AD3d 333 [2006]; Palmieri v Windowrama, Inc., 277 AD2d 210 [2000]; see generally Faricelli v TSS Seedman’s, 94 NY2d 772, 774 [1999]; Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750, 756 [1999]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.