SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

977 

CA 13-00146 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

 

 

CARMEN BRITT AND CARMEN BRITT, AS EXECUTOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF LULA BAITY, DECEASED, 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BUFFALO MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ELAINE 

GARBE, BISILOLA F. JACKSON, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF JERELENE ELIZABETH GIWA, DECEASED, 

GRACE MANOR HEALTH CARE FACILITY, INC., DAVID J. 

GENTNER, MARY STEPHAN, KATHY RANDALL, TIFFANY 

MATTHEWS, AND PHILLIP J. RADOS, M.D., 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

LAW OFFICE OF FRANK S. FALZONE, BUFFALO (RONALD P. HART OF COUNSEL),

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C., BUFFALO (JOHN J. MARCHESE OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS BUFFALO MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ELAINE 

GARBE, AND BISILOLA F. JACKSON, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF

JERELENE ELIZABETH GIWA, DECEASED. 

ROACH, BROWN, MCCARTHY & GRUBER, P.C., BUFFALO (ELIZABETH G. ADYMY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT PHILLIP J. RADOS, M.D. 

FELDMAN KIEFFER, LLP, BUFFALO (ADAM C. FERRANDINO OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS GRACE MANOR HEALTH CARE FACILITY, INC., DAVID

J. GENTNER, MARY STEPHAN, KATHY RANDALL AND TIFFANY MATTHEWS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y.

Devlin, J.), entered October 18, 2012. The order granted the

respective motion and cross motions of defendants for summary judgment

dismissing the second amended complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order granting the

respective motion and cross motions of defendants seeking summary

judgment dismissing the second amended complaint against them. It is

undisputed that plaintiff failed to oppose the motion and cross

motions or to appear on the return date thereof, and thus we deem the

order to be entered upon plaintiff’s default (see generally Armele v
-2- 977 

CA 13-00146 

Moose Intl., 302 AD2d 986, 987). We therefore dismiss the appeal from

the order inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order entered on default

(see CPLR 5511; Calaci v Allied Interstate, Inc. [appeal No. 2], 108

AD3d 1127, 1128; Putrino-Weiser v Sharf, 272 AD2d 894, 894). The fact

that Supreme Court, upon plaintiff’s default, granted the motion and

cross motions on the merits and on the grounds of res judicata and

collateral estoppel is of no moment inasmuch as no appeal lies from an

order entered on default. “[I]t is not inconsistent to determine both

that plaintiff[ is] in default and that defendants are entitled to

summary judgment on the merits. Plaintiff[’s] remedy is to move to

vacate the default [order]” (Putrino-Weiser, 272 AD2d at 895). 

We note, however, that the appeal from the final order brings up

for our review “matters which were the subject of contest” before the

court (James v Powell, 19 NY2d 249, 256 n 3; see Lewis v Lewis, 183

AD2d 875, 875; cf. Tun v Aw, 10 AD3d 651, 651-652), i.e., the

propriety of the nonfinal order granting the respective cross motions

of defendants seeking leave to amend their answers to allege the

affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel. 

Inasmuch as the amended answers alleged new affirmative defenses that

served as one of the two bases for the final order granting the motion

and cross motions for summary judgment, the nonfinal order

“necessarily affect[s] the final [order]” (Oakes v Patel, 20 NY3d 633,

645). We agree with plaintiff that the court abused its discretion in

granting those parts of the cross motions with respect to the

affirmative defense of res judicata. The cross motions seeking leave

to amend the respective answers were based upon the dismissal of a

federal court action arising from the underlying facts at issue here,

namely, the alleged wrongful removal of plaintiff’s decedent from her

home for medical treatment and the alleged continued wrongful

confinement of plaintiff’s decedent. Because the federal court did

not exercise its pendent jurisdiction over the related state law

claims, but instead dismissed those claims without prejudice, the

ultimate dismissal of the federal action did not have res judicata

effect with respect to the instant action (see McLearn v Cowen & Co.,

60 NY2d 686, 688; cf. Troy v Goord, 300 AD2d 1086, 1087). We

nevertheless conclude that, because the court granted defendants

summary judgment on a ground other than res judicata, i.e., on the

merits, and that order entered on default is not properly before us on

appeal (see CPLR 5511), there is no action pending and thus “a

favorable ruling would not entitle [plaintiff] to any particular

relief” (Matter of Ameillia R.R. [Megan SS.], 95 AD3d 1525, 1526). We

therefore dismiss the appeal as moot insofar as it brings up for

review the prior nonfinal order granting defendants’ respective cross

motions for leave to amend their answers. 

Finally, plaintiff relies on matters outside of the record on

appeal in support of the contention in her brief that the court abused

its discretion in denying her request for an adjournment of the return

date of defendants’ motion and cross motions seeking summary judgment,
-3- 977 

CA 13-00146 

and thus it is not properly before us (cf. Tun, 10 AD3d at 651-652). 

Entered: September 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court