Brady v. Sintyago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brady v. Sintyago

69 A.D.3d 784, 891 N.Y.2d 909

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 19, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 784 (Brady v. Sintyago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brady v. Sintyago, 69 A.D.3d 784, 891 N.Y.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In the order appealed from, the plaintiffs motion, which the appellant opposed, was denied. While the appellant challenges certain factual statements set forth in the order, it is not aggrieved by these statements {see CPLR 5511; Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co., 68 NY2d 465, 472-473 [1986]; Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City ofN.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 544-545 [1983]; Sirius Am. Ins. Co. v Vigo Constr. Corp., 48 AD3d 450, 451-452 [2008]). The appellant’s remaining contentions relate to parts of the order which were issued sua sponte. No appeal lies as of right from an order which does not decide a motion made on notice (see CFLR 5701 [a] [2]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In the order appealed from, the plaintiffs motion, which the appellant opposed, was denied. While the appellant challenges certain factual statements set forth in the order, it is not aggrieved by these statements {see CPLR 5511; Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co., 68 NY2d 465, 472-473 [1986]; Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City ofN.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 544-545 [1983]; Sirius Am. Ins. Co. v Vigo Constr. Corp., 48 AD3d 450, 451-452 [2008]). The appellant’s remaining contentions relate to parts of the order which were issued sua sponte. No appeal lies as of right from an order which does not decide a motion made on notice (see CFLR 5701 [a] [2]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 784, 891 N.Y.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-sintyago-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack