Key Takeaway
Understanding CPLR 5501(a)(1): How to challenge adverse summary judgment rulings on appeal from final judgment. Expert analysis of Bandler v Liberty case.
This article is part of our ongoing procedural issues coverage, with 201 published articles analyzing procedural issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
An Appeal from a Judgment After a Trial Brings Up for Review a Summary Judgment Motion That Was Not Previously Appealed
Navigating New York’s appellate system requires a deep understanding of procedural rules that can make or break a case. For attorneys practicing personal injury and commercial litigation throughout Long Island and New York City, understanding when and how to appeal adverse rulings is crucial for protecting their clients’ interests. The case of Bandler v Liberty Chevrolet, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 50475(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2010), provides an excellent illustration of how New York’s appellate rules allow parties to challenge summary judgment decisions even after a trial has concluded.
Understanding New York’s Appellate Framework
Many people, I guess because of the volume of interlocutory appeals that our courts handle, seem to forget that an adverse summary judgment decision may be appealed from the final judgment after trial. The only caveat is that the motion may not have been appealed and dismissed or perfected and adjudicated. The Appellate Term, First Department stated the following:
Defendant Liberty Chevrolet, Inc. appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered February 3, 2009, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding him damages in the principal sum of $23,348.84, which appeal brings up for review (see CPLR 5501) an order (same court, Francis M. Alessandro, J.), dated June 3, 2008, which, among other things, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it.
Judgment (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered February 3, 2009, appeal from which brought up for review an order (same court, Francis M. Alessandro, J.), dated June 3, 2008, reversed, with $30 costs, defendant Liberty Chevrolet’s motion for summary judgment granted and complaint dismissed as against it. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
…
Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in the within action… should have been granted.
In light of this determination, we need not address defendant’s assignments of trial error.
The Strategic Importance of CPLR 5501(a)(1)
CPLR 5501(a)(1) is a powerful tool that allows appellate courts to review interlocutory orders that were not previously appealed when they are brought up by an appeal from a final judgment. This rule recognizes that litigants should not be forced to interrupt trial proceedings with interlocutory appeals every time an adverse ruling is made, while still preserving their right to challenge those rulings on appeal from the final judgment.
For practitioners in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Nassau County, and Suffolk County, understanding this rule is essential for developing effective litigation and appellate strategies. The rule provides both opportunities and potential pitfalls that can dramatically affect case outcomes.
Whether you’re facing an adverse summary judgment ruling or considering your appellate options after trial, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum provides experienced representation throughout the New York court system. Contact us at (516) 750-0595 to discuss how our appellate and litigation expertise can protect your interests and achieve your goals.
Related Articles
- Understanding when CPLR 3212(f) discovery limitations don’t apply
- When summary judgment relief becomes improper under CPLR 3212(g)
- How documentary evidence limitations affect summary judgment motions
- Understanding notice of entry requirements in summary judgment proceedings
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, New York’s appellate procedures under CPLR Article 55 may have been subject to amendments affecting timing requirements, motion practice, or appellate jurisdiction. Practitioners should verify current CPLR 5501 provisions and recent Appellate Division rules regarding the scope of review for summary judgment motions challenged after trial judgments.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Procedural Issues in New York Litigation
New York civil procedure governs every stage of litigation — from pleading requirements and service of process to motion practice, discovery deadlines, and trial procedures. The CPLR creates strict procedural rules that can make or break a case regardless of the underlying merits. These articles examine the procedural pitfalls, timing requirements, and strategic considerations that practitioners face in New York state courts, with a particular focus on no-fault insurance and personal injury practice.
201 published articles in Procedural Issues
Keep Reading
More Procedural Issues Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.
Feb 24, 2026
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
3404 and 3216 collide – well somewhat
Court ruling on CPLR 3404 vs 3216 dismissal motions in no-fault insurance breach of contract case, discussing procedural requirements and litigation delays.
May 5, 2012
And this is why computerized range of motion testing is medically necessary – yet, not admissible.
Simanovskiy rejected computerized test results lacking personal-knowledge proof. Read the holding, Perl's later timing rule and the historical limits.
Apr 23, 2010
Understanding Motion to Dismiss in New York Personal Injury Cases
Learn about motions to dismiss in New York personal injury cases. Expert legal guidance from experienced attorneys. Call 516-750-0595 for free consultation.
Oct 24, 2019
Where did 4518 come from?
New York Appellate Term references CPLR 4518 in no-fault mailing case, raising questions about business record foundations and evolving legal standards.
Jul 6, 2014Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a procedural issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
