Case Name: Jadadic Adzer et al., Appellants, v. Rudin Management Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2008-04-29
Citations: 50 A.D.3d 1069
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jadadic Adzer et al., Appellants, v Rudin Management Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 1069–1069

Head Matter:
(April 29, 2008)
Jadadic Adzer et al., Appellants, v Rudin Management Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
[855 NYS2d 904]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated January 23, 2006, which, upon striking the answer of the defendants Rudin Management Co., Inc. and Three Times Square Center Partners, LLR inter alia, denied that branch of their motion which was, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment against those defendants on the issue of liability and thereafter for an inquest on the issue of damages.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination on a companion appeal (see Adzer v Rudin Mgt. Co., Inc., 50 AD3d 1070 [2008] [decided herewith]).
Motion by the respondents, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 23, 2006, on the ground that the order was superseded by a subsequent order of the same court dated June 7, 2006. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 9, 2007 [2007 NY Slip Op 62902(U)], that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the appeal from the order dated January 23, 2006, was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is
Ordered that the branch of the motion to dismiss the appeal from the order dated January 23, 2006 is denied as academic in light of our determination on the appeal. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Dillon, JJ., concur.