Chaimowitz v. Goldschmidt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chaimowitz v. Goldschmidt

87 A.D.2d 882, 449 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16380

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

DecidedApril 26, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 A.D.2d 882 (Chaimowitz v. Goldschmidt) 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

Chaimowitz v. Goldschmidt, 87 A.D.2d 882, 449 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Slifkin, J.), entered September 2, 1981, as directed that a hearing be held on the issues raised by her cross motion for a money judgment. Appeal dismissed, sua sponte, without costs, or disbursements. That portion of the order from which an appeal is sought is merely a ruling that the issue of whether to grant the plaintiff’s cross motion for a money judgment could not be determined on the papers submitted for Special Term’s consideration and that a full hearing is required. In Sklarin v Sklarin (86 AD2d 606), we held that an order directing a judicial hearing to aid in the disposition of a motion does not affect a substantial right (see CPLR 5701, subd [a], par 2, cl [v]), and is therefore not appealable as of right. In accordance therewith, the instant appeal is dismissed. An appeal will lie from the order entered subsequent to the hearing. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Slifkin, J.), entered September 2, 1981, as directed that a hearing be held on the issues raised by her cross motion for a money judgment. Appeal dismissed, sua sponte, without costs, or disbursements. That portion of the order from which an appeal is sought is merely a ruling that the issue of whether to grant the plaintiff’s cross motion for a money judgment could not be determined on the papers submitted for Special Term’s consideration and that a full hearing is required. In Sklarin v Sklarin (86 AD2d 606), we held that an order directing a judicial hearing to aid in the disposition of a motion does not affect a substantial right (see CPLR 5701, subd [a], par 2, cl [v]), and is therefore not appealable as of right. In accordance therewith, the instant appeal is dismissed. An appeal will lie from the order entered subsequent to the hearing. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 882, 449 N.Y.S.2d 542, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaimowitz-v-goldschmidt-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack