| Man Chit Cheng a/k/a Ming Jie Cheng & Mui Ying (kong) Cheng v Teddy Moore |
| Motion No: 2008-01831 QC |
| Slip Opinion No: 2009 NY Slip Op 85087(U) |
| Decided on September 29, 2009 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
APPELLATE TERM : 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
| MAN CHIT CHENG a/k/a MING JIE CHENG and MUI YING (KONG) CHENG, Respondents, -against- TEDDY MOORE, Appellant, -and- FRANK GUERRA, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, Occupants. |
DECISION On the court's own motion, appeal number 2008-1831 Q C and appeal number 2009-27 Q C are consolidated for the purposes of disposition.
On the court's further motion, the appeal by appellant Teddy Moore from the decision dated June 13, 2008 is deemed from the five orders entered pursuant to said decision on the same date (see CPLR 5512 [a]).
On the court's further motion, the appeal by appellant Teddy Moore from the three orders dated June 13, 2008 which, respectively, (1) granted in part landlords-respondents' motion to, inter alia, dismiss appellant's affirmative defenses and to strike appellant's request for a jury trial, (2) denied a motion by appellant seeking to recuse the judge, and (3) denied a motion by appellant seeking to dismiss the petition, for a default judgment on his counterclaims, and for sanctions, which orders necessarily affect the final judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a]), is dismissed on the ground that the right of direct appeal from those orders terminated with the entry of the final judgment (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]).
On the court's further motion, the appeal by appellant Teddy Moore from the two orders dated June 13, 2008 denying his motions to direct landlords-respondents to correct violations and to allow him to "remove and dispose all the clutter and abandoned property of past Tenants" is dismissed as academic, as appellant has been evicted.
On the court's further motion, the appeal by appellant Teddy Moore from the portion of the order dated September 17, 2008 which denied so much of his motion as sought to "rehear and reargue" all prior motions is dismissed on the ground that no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see e.g. Greenstein v Greenstein, 65 AD3d 607 [2009]).
On the court's further motion, the appeal by appellant Teddy Moore from the portion of the order dated September 17, 2008 which denied so much of his motion as sought, in effect, post-trial relief pursuant to CPLR 5015 or CPLR 4404 is stricken from the general calendar on the ground that the minutes of the trial have not been made part of the record, and we find such minutes to be necessary for appellate review of said portion of the order.