Johnson v. Yeshiva University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Yeshiva University

53 A.D.2d 523, 384 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13119

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

DecidedJune 8, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 523 (Johnson v. Yeshiva University) 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

Johnson v. Yeshiva University, 53 A.D.2d 523, 384 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered December 15, 1975, denying the motion of the defendants-third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, to grant summary judgment dismissing the first six causes of action of the complaint and otherwise affirmed. Only the defendants-third-party plaintiffs have appealed, with their appeal directed solely to the first six causes of action. Those causes of action are not known to the law and "should await legislative sanction and should not be accepted by judicial fiat” (Stewart v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 35 AD2d 531, 532, affd 30 NY2d 695; Greenberg v Kliot, 47 AD2d 765, mot for lv to app den 37 NY2d 707). We do not reach the request of the third-party defendant to review the disposition of the seventh and eighth causes of action because it has not filed a notice of appeal (Matter of Holland, 50 AD2d 735). Although leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was granted orally upon consent, we note that our order dismissing the first six causes of action implicitly severs them from those remaining and is a final order (Sirlin Plumbing Co. v Maple Hill Homes, 20 NY2d 401; cf. Lizza Ind., v Long Is. Light. Co., 36 NY2d 754). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered December 15, 1975, denying the motion of the defendants-third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, to grant summary judgment dismissing the first six causes of action of the complaint and otherwise affirmed. Only the defendants-third-party plaintiffs have appealed, with their appeal directed solely to the first six causes of action. Those causes of action are not known to the law and "should await legislative sanction and should not be accepted by judicial fiat” (Stewart v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 35 AD2d 531, 532, affd 30 NY2d 695; Greenberg v Kliot, 47 AD2d 765, mot for lv to app den 37 NY2d 707). We do not reach the request of the third-party defendant to review the disposition of the seventh and eighth causes of action because it has not filed a notice of appeal (Matter of Holland, 50 AD2d 735). Although leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was granted orally upon consent, we note that our order dismissing the first six causes of action implicitly severs them from those remaining and is a final order (Sirlin Plumbing Co. v Maple Hill Homes, 20 NY2d 401; cf. Lizza Ind., v Long Is. Light. Co., 36 NY2d 754). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 523, 384 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-yeshiva-university-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack