Henning v. Ritz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henning v. Ritz

44 A.D.3d 1005, 843 N.Y.S.2d 845

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 1005 (Henning v. Ritz) 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

Henning v. Ritz, 44 A.D.3d 1005, 843 N.Y.S.2d 845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered January 11, 1999, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered April 25, 2006, as directed a hearing on his application for an award of counsel fees.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

An order directing a hearing to aid in the determination of a motion does not dispose of the motion and does not affect a substantial right, and therefore is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; Kornblum v Kornblum, 34 AD3d 749 [2006]; Berliner v Berliner, 294 AD2d 524 [2002]). Any party [1006]*1006aggrieved by an order entered subsequent to the hearing may take an appeal from that order (see Berliner v Berliner, 294 AD2d at 525). Since leave to appeal has not been granted, we dismiss the appeal. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered January 11, 1999, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered April 25, 2006, as directed a hearing on his application for an award of counsel fees.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

An order directing a hearing to aid in the determination of a motion does not dispose of the motion and does not affect a substantial right, and therefore is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; Kornblum v Kornblum, 34 AD3d 749 [2006]; Berliner v Berliner, 294 AD2d 524 [2002]). Any party [1006]*1006aggrieved by an order entered subsequent to the hearing may take an appeal from that order (see Berliner v Berliner, 294 AD2d at 525). Since leave to appeal has not been granted, we dismiss the appeal. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 1005, 843 N.Y.S.2d 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henning-v-ritz-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack