LW Holdco V LLC v. Puls

2024 NY Slip Op 05026

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 10, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 654747/21 Appeal No. 2776 Case No. 2023-04363
• Status: Published

Opinion

LW Holdco V LLC v Puls (2024 NY Slip Op 05026)

LW Holdco V LLC v Puls

2024 NY Slip Op 05026

Decided on October 10, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

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

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 10, 2024
Before: Kern, J.P., Oing, Kennedy, Higgitt, Michael, JJ.

Index No. 654747/21 Appeal No. 2776 Case No. 2023-04363

[*1]LW Holdco LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Kelly Puls, Defendant-Appellant, Mark Haney, et al., Defendants.

Levy Goldenberg LLP, New York (Adam M. Birnbaum of counsel), for appellant.

Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, New York (Scott M. Danner of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered August 1, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for sanctions to the extent of striking defendant's answer, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Plaintiff's motion for sanctions was granted on default and, therefore, was nonappealable (CPLR 5511; see also Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Zimmerman, 31 NY3d 1135, 1136 [2018]). Defendant's one-page email to plaintiff's counsel discussing various housekeeping issues, with a mention of the pending discovery dispute, which was never filed, did not constitute opposition to the motion for sanctions. Nor did it comply with the court's order to respond to the motion.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 10, 2024