Cirillo v. Cremonese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cirillo v. Cremonese

283 A.D.2d 601, 725 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5519

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 601 (Cirillo v. Cremonese) 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

Cirillo v. Cremonese, 283 A.D.2d 601, 725 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages [602]*602for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Hall, J.), dated August 31, 2000, as held their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability in abeyance pending in camera inspection of the defendant’s witnesses’ affidavits in unredacted form and submission of an affirmation of the defendant’s counsel explaining the need to protect the identities of the witnesses.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The provision of the order from which the appeal is taken did not decide the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, but left it pending and undecided. Accordingly, no appeal lies as of right from that portion of the order (see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Nikac v Rukaj, 276 AD2d 537; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 543), and we decline to grant leave to appeal. Gold-stein, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages [602]*602for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Hall, J.), dated August 31, 2000, as held their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability in abeyance pending in camera inspection of the defendant’s witnesses’ affidavits in unredacted form and submission of an affirmation of the defendant’s counsel explaining the need to protect the identities of the witnesses.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The provision of the order from which the appeal is taken did not decide the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, but left it pending and undecided. Accordingly, no appeal lies as of right from that portion of the order (see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Nikac v Rukaj, 276 AD2d 537; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 543), and we decline to grant leave to appeal. Gold-stein, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 601, 725 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cirillo-v-cremonese-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack