Strnad v. Brudnicki

Full title: HERMINE H. STRNAD et al., Respondents, v. GARY BRUDNICKI et al., Appellants

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 31, 1994

200 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

606 N.Y.S.2d 913

Opinion

January 31, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of a final judgment in the action on March 10, 1993 (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are not brought up for review and have not been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, Strnad v Brudnicki, 200 A.D.2d 735 [decided herewith]), as the preliminary injunction was a provisional remedy designed to maintain the status quo while the action was pending and thus does not "necessarily affect" the final judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; Two Guys from Harrison-NY v. S.F.R. Realty Assocs., 186 A.D.2d 186, 189; Cinerama, Inc. v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 38 A.D.2d 698). Upon entry of the judgment, the preliminary injunction expired (see, CPLR art 63), and thus the appeal is now academic. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.