Hilligas v. Veznedaroglu

96 A.D.2d 721, 465 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19291
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 11, 1983·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: Special Term’s order “requiring all future motions and proceedings [herein] to be heard in the Eighth Judicial District by the medical malpractice judge who is assigned by the administrative judge” is not an order affecting a substantial right in an action within the meaning of CPLR 5701 (subd [a], par 2, cl [v]) and thus is not appealable. Were we to reach the merits, we would hold that since a rule or regulation cannot enlarge or abridge rights conferred by statute (Moot v Moot, 214 NY 204, 211; People ex rel. Mayor of City of N. Y. v Nichols, 79 NY 582, 592), Special Term’s directive is a nullity (Broome County Farmers’ Fire Relief Assn. v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 239 App Div 304, 306, affd 264 NY 614). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J. — venue — malpractice.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Hilligas v. Veznedaroglu, 96 A.D.2d 721, 465 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

96 A.D.2d 721 (Hilligas v. Veznedaroglu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ildefonso v. Farrell Co.
112 A.D.2d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)