Edgar S. v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edgar S. v. Roman

115 A.D.3d 931, 982 N.Y.S.2d 529

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 931 (Edgar S. v. Roman) 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

Edgar S. v. Roman, 115 A.D.3d 931, 982 N.Y.S.2d 529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., Lita S., as guardian of the person of the plaintiff Edgar S., appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), entered October 26, 2012, as directed the distribution of the proceeds of a certain settlement agreement. Motion by the plaintiff-respondent, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appellant is not aggrieved by the order appealed from and that the appellant lacks standing. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 21, 2013, those branches of the motion were held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant is not aggrieved by the order appealed from is granted (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant lacks standing is denied as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

A party is aggrieved within the meaning of CPLR 5511 “when he or she asks for relief but that relief is denied in whole or in [932]*932part,” or, when someone “asks for relief against him or her, which the person opposes, and the relief is granted in whole or in part” (Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144, 156-157 [2010] [emphasis omitted]; see Mahmood v Gutman, 81 AD3d 792, 792 [2011]). “ ‘[A party] is not aggrieved by an order which does not grant relief [he or she] did not request’” (Spielman v Mehraban, 105 AD3d 943, 943-944 [2013], quoting Schlecker v Yorktown Elec. & Light. Distribs., Inc., 94 AD3d 855, 855 [2012]). Here, the appellant is not aggrieved by so much of the order appealed from as directed the distribution of the proceeds of a certain settlement agreement, since she did not move for any relief nor was any relief granted against her. Since the appellant is not aggrieved, the appeal must be dismissed (see CPLR 5511; Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d at

156-157). Balkin, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., Lita S., as guardian of the person of the plaintiff Edgar S., appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), entered October 26, 2012, as directed the distribution of the proceeds of a certain settlement agreement. Motion by the plaintiff-respondent, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appellant is not aggrieved by the order appealed from and that the appellant lacks standing. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 21, 2013, those branches of the motion were held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant is not aggrieved by the order appealed from is granted (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant lacks standing is denied as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

A party is aggrieved within the meaning of CPLR 5511 “when he or she asks for relief but that relief is denied in whole or in [932]*932part,” or, when someone “asks for relief against him or her, which the person opposes, and the relief is granted in whole or in part” (Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144, 156-157 [2010] [emphasis omitted]; see Mahmood v Gutman, 81 AD3d 792, 792 [2011]). “ ‘[A party] is not aggrieved by an order which does not grant relief [he or she] did not request’” (Spielman v Mehraban, 105 AD3d 943, 943-944 [2013], quoting Schlecker v Yorktown Elec. & Light. Distribs., Inc., 94 AD3d 855, 855 [2012]). Here, the appellant is not aggrieved by so much of the order appealed from as directed the distribution of the proceeds of a certain settlement agreement, since she did not move for any relief nor was any relief granted against her. Since the appellant is not aggrieved, the appeal must be dismissed (see CPLR 5511; Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d at

156-157). Balkin, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 931, 982 N.Y.S.2d 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edgar-s-v-roman-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack