Monfort v. Alden Cent. Sch. Dist.
This text of Monfort v. Alden Cent. Sch. Dist. (Monfort v. Alden Cent. Sch. Dist.) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Monfort v Alden Cent. Sch. Dist.
2026 NY Slip Op 02738
May 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
CHRISTOPHER MONFORT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v
ALDEN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ALDEN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Decided on May 1, 2026
90 CA 25-00138
Present: Lindley, J.P., Curran, Ogden, Greenwood, And Hannah, JJ.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C., NEW YORK CITY (JASON P. WEINSTEIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (HUGH M. RUSS, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Appeal from a "decision and order" of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Daniel Furlong, J.), entered January 14, 2025. The "decision and order" granted in part the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
[*1]It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: In this action pursuant to the Child Victims Act (see CPLR 214-g), plaintiff purports to appeal from the "Decision and Order," as limited by his brief, to the extent that it granted that part of defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing his second cause of action, for negligent supervision of plaintiff while acting in loco parentis. We dismiss the appeal. " '[N]o appeal lies from a [mere] decision,' " and a document does not become an order simply because it has been denominated as such (Garcia v Town of Tonawanda, 194 AD3d 1479, 1479 [4th Dept 2021]; see Allen v Grimm, 208 AD3d 1589, 1589-1590 [4th Dept 2022]; Kuhn v Kuhn, 129 AD2d 967, 967 [4th Dept 1987]). Although the paper contains the words "Decision and Order," it does not meet the essential elements of an order inasmuch as it does not "recite the papers used on the motion" (CPLR 2219 [a]), and furthermore "that document did not actually order anything" (Pecora v Lawrence, 28 AD3d 1136, 1137 [4th Dept 2006]; see Prevost v Associated Materials, LLC, 239 AD3d 1235, 1236 [4th Dept 2025]).
Entered: May 1, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Monfort v. Alden Cent. Sch. Dist., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monfort-v-alden-cent-sch-dist-nyappdiv-2026.