Glenn A. Becker, M.D., PLLC v. Fileccia

75 Misc. 3d 131(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50442(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: May 23, 2022
• Docket: 2021-343 S C
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Glenn A. Becker, M.D., PLLC v Fileccia (2022 NY Slip Op 50442(U)) [*1]

Glenn A. Becker, M.D., PLLC v Fileccia

2022 NY Slip Op 50442(U) [75 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on May 23, 2022

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 23, 2022

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, J.P., HELEN VOUTSINAS, BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ
2021-343 S C

Glenn A. Becker, M.D., PLLC, Appellant,

against

Michelle Fileccia, Respondent.

Smith, Carroad, Levy, Wan & Parikh, P.C. (Kevin M. Knab and Timothy Wan of counsel), for appellant. James A. DeFelice, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a decision of the District Court, Suffolk County, First District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated September 26, 2019. The decision, after an inquest on submission, found that plaintiff had failed to prove its damages.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this action, plaintiff, which is a professional limited liability company, seeks to recover the principal sum of $10,040.03 for unpaid medical bills. The unverified complaint alleges one cause of action which plaintiff has described as seeking a recovery in quantum meruit, and a second cause of action on an account stated.

After defendant answered the complaint, denying liability, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff's motion was unopposed. In an order dated July 30, 2019, the District Court (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.) granted plaintiff's motion on the issue of liability, without specifying the cause of action upon which plaintiff had prevailed, and ordered plaintiff to submit papers for an inquest upon submission. After plaintiff submitted papers, in a paper labeled "Inquest Submission Date" and dated September 26, 2019, the District Court "ordered that the inquest is denied," upon a finding that plaintiff had failed to prove its damages. Plaintiff appeals this decision. No judgment has been entered.

The September 26, 2019 paper constitutes a decision, and no appeal lies from a decision (see Greenfield v Tassinari, 8 AD3d 529 [2004]; Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]; see also Matter of Marinho v Apolinario, 201 AD3d 721 [2022]). Even if the September 26, 2019 document could be deemed to be an order, the paper is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made upon notice (see UDCA 1702 [a] [2]; Rene v Abrams, 193 AD3d 1001 [2021]; Reyes v Eleftheria Rest. Corp., 162 AD3d 808 [2018]; see also Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

DRISCOLL, J.P., VOUTSINAS and WARHIT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 23, 2022