Legal Opinion
Maraviglia v. Lokshina
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 28, 2012PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The appeal from the intermediate order dated August 13, 2010, 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]).
A new trial is warranted in light of the inappropriate cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, as well as the inflam*925matory and improper summation comments of counsel for the defendants. The defendants’ counsel…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In re AhoNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Blinds To Go (U.S.), Inc. v. Times Plaza Development, L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Steidel v. County of NassauAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Reynolds v. BurgheziAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Gutierrez v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. RudolphAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Sehgal v. www.nyairports-bus.com, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Menkes v. Beth Abraham Health Servs.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2026
- Smith v. RudolphAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017