Dana v. Dana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dana v. Dana

26 A.D.2d 631, 272 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3660

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 5, 1966·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., two physicians (who are nonparties to the action) appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 23, 1965, which inter alia authorized settlement of the infant plaintiff’s action. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. Upon plaintiffs’ application for entry of a compromise order herein, the court below at a Pretrial Term struck out proposed decretal provisions for the payment of medical fees allegedly owing to the appellants who were not parties to the action and over ivhom the court had no jurisdiction. In our opinion, notwithstanding the court’s opinion concerning the reason for its deletion of the proposed ordering paragraphs, appellants are not aggrieved persons entitled to appeal from the order (CPLR 5511; cf., Reardon v. Spagna, 284 App. Div. 975; see 8 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 525). Ughetta, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [48 Misc 2d 717.]

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., two physicians (who are nonparties to the action) appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 23, 1965, which inter alia authorized settlement of the infant plaintiff’s action. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. Upon plaintiffs’ application for entry of a compromise order herein, the court below at a Pretrial Term struck out proposed decretal provisions for the payment of medical fees allegedly owing to the appellants who were not parties to the action and over ivhom the court had no jurisdiction. In our opinion, notwithstanding the court’s opinion concerning the reason for its deletion of the proposed ordering paragraphs, appellants are not aggrieved persons entitled to appeal from the order (CPLR 5511; cf., Reardon v. Spagna, 284 App. Div. 975; see 8 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 525). Ughetta, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [48 Misc 2d 717.]

Dana v. Dana, 26 A.D.2d 631, 272 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

26 A.D.2d 631 (Dana v. Dana) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related