March 25, 2026

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 USC § 1962 [c]) and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Paul I. Marx, J.), dated October 5, 2020, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated October 6, 2020. The order, among other things, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Shaul Kopelowitz, Hillcrest Acquisitions, LLC, 404 Homes, LLC, Autumn Brook, LLC, Country Shores, LLC, Stoneview Homes, LLC, Liberty Homes, LLC, Summer Chase, LLC, Summer Chase 2, LLC, and Gateway Homes, LLC, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, inter alia, for discovery pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d) and 3212 (f) and for leave to serve and file an amended complaint. The judgment, upon the order, in effect, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the order is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings, including a new determination on the merits of the motion of the defendants Shaul Kopelowitz, Hillcrest Acquisitions, LLC, 404 Homes, LLC, Autumn Brook, LLC, Country Shores, LLC, Stoneview Homes, LLC, Liberty Homes, LLC, Summer Chase, LLC, Summer Chase 2, LLC, and Gateway Homes, LLC, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion, among other things, for discovery pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d) and 3212 (f) and for leave to serve and file an amended complaint.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d at 248).

[*2]In November 2019, the plaintiff, suing individually and derivatively on behalf of the nomianl defendant, LEO Property Holdings, LLC, commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 USC § 1962 [c]) and breach of contract related to the ownership of real property owned and/or managed by the defendants Shaul Kopelowitz, Hillcrest Acquisitions, LLC, 404 Homes, LLC, Autumn Brook, LLC, Country Shores, LLC, Stoneview Homes, LLC, Liberty Homes, LLC, Summer Chase, LLC, Summer Chase 2, LLC, and Gateway Homes, LLC (hereinafter collectively the defendants). The defendants interposed an answer in January 2020.

Thereafter, the defendants moved, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved, inter alia, for discovery pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d) and 3212 (f) and for leave to serve and file an amended complaint. In an order dated October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the defendants' motion and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court noted that the plaintiff's affirmation and memorandum of law in opposition to the defendants' motion and in support of the cross-motion violated the court's rules by exceeding the page limit. As a result, the court considered only those portions of the plaintiff's affirmation and memorandum of law up to the page limit. A judgment was thereafter issued, upon the order, in effect, in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.

"Courts are authorized to establish rules for the proceedings before them, provided those rules . . . and the procedures by which they are enforced, must be reasonable" (Kaplan v 55th St. Apts. Inc., 235 AD3d 589, 589-590 [2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Macias v City of Yonkers, 65 AD3d 1298, 1299 [2009]). "It is appropriate for courts to set page or word limits on submissions, and to reject papers that fail to comply with those limits" (Kaplan v 55th St. Apts. Inc., 235 AD3d at 590; see 22 NYCRR 202.8-b; Macias v City of Yonkers, 65 AD3d at 1299). However, "[i]t is not reasonable . . . for a court to accept papers that do not comply with the court's page limitation and then refuse to read the noncompliant pages, denying, as a consequence, substantive relief that may be warranted" (Macias v City of Yonkers, 65 AD3d at 1299; see Matter of East 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig., 119 AD3d 437, 438 [2014]). Having accepted the plaintiff's papers, the Supreme Court should have considered the entirety of the plaintiff's affirmation and memorandum of law submitted in support of the plaintiff's opposition to the defendants' motion and in support of the cross-motion. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for a new determination on the merits of the defendants' motion and the plaintiff's cross-motion.

In light of the foregoing, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions. Genovesi, J.P., Brathwaite Nelson, Dowling and Hom, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 69 Misc 3d 1211(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 51260(U).]