Crawford v. New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crawford v. New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications

136 A.D.3d 591, 25 N.Y.S.3d 595

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 2016

Docket314 104275/12

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 591 (Crawford v. New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications) 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

Crawford v. New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications, 136 A.D.3d 591, 25 N.Y.S.3d 595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on or about March 27, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted respondent’s cross motion to seal the papers it filed in opposition to the CPLR article 78 petition and the papers that petitioners filed in reply, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Petitioners’ right to appeal from the order terminated with the entry of the final judgment in this proceeding (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). We reject any suggestion by petitioners that the rule stated in Matter of Aho is inapplicable to sealing orders, such as the order at issue on appeal (see Anonymous v Anonymous, 251 AD2d 610 [2d Dept 1998]). Further, the Aho rule is applicable even if the order appealed from does not necessarily affect the final judgment (see Siegmund Strauss, Inc. v East 149th Realty Corp., 81 AD3d 260, 266-267 [1st Dept 2010], mod on other grounds 20 NY3d 37 [2012]). The order is a nonfinal, intermediate order, because it did not dispose of the petition seeking certain documents; the doctrine of implied severance does not apply (see Burke v Crosson, 85 NY2d 10, 15-17 [1995]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on or about March 27, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted respondent’s cross motion to seal the papers it filed in opposition to the CPLR article 78 petition and the papers that petitioners filed in reply, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Petitioners’ right to appeal from the order terminated with the entry of the final judgment in this proceeding (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). We reject any suggestion by petitioners that the rule stated in Matter of Aho is inapplicable to sealing orders, such as the order at issue on appeal (see Anonymous v Anonymous, 251 AD2d 610 [2d Dept 1998]). Further, the Aho rule is applicable even if the order appealed from does not necessarily affect the final judgment (see Siegmund Strauss, Inc. v East 149th Realty Corp., 81 AD3d 260, 266-267 [1st Dept 2010], mod on other grounds 20 NY3d 37 [2012]). The order is a nonfinal, intermediate order, because it did not dispose of the petition seeking certain documents; the doctrine of implied severance does not apply (see Burke v Crosson, 85 NY2d 10, 15-17 [1995]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 591, 25 N.Y.S.3d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-new-york-city-department-of-information-technology-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack