Hilligas v. Veznedaroglu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hilligas v. Veznedaroglu

96 A.D.2d 721, 465 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19291

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 A.D.2d 721 (Hilligas v. Veznedaroglu) 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

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).

Pincite

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

— 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 721, 465 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilligas-v-veznedaroglu-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack