Person v. Einhorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Person v. Einhorn

44 A.D.3d 363, 841 N.Y.S.2d 869

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 363 (Person v. Einhorn) 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

Person v. Einhorn, 44 A.D.3d 363, 841 N.Y.S.2d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered March 2, 2006, which sua sponte dismissed the complaint upon defendant Michael Einhorn’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), to dismiss the second cause of action as to plaintiff Carl Person only and to stay the action pending arbitration, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

There is no right of appeal from an order entered sua sponte (Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333 [2003]). The proper procedure should have been for the plaintiff to move to vacate the order and appealed as of right if that motion was denied (CPLR 5701 [a] [3]). Given questions surrounding the status of the arbitration hearing, this procedure ensures that the appeal will be made on a suitable record after counsel have had an opportunity to be heard (Davidson v Regan Fund Mgt. Ltd., 15 AD3d 172 [2005]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered March 2, 2006, which sua sponte dismissed the complaint upon defendant Michael Einhorn’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), to dismiss the second cause of action as to plaintiff Carl Person only and to stay the action pending arbitration, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

There is no right of appeal from an order entered sua sponte (Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333 [2003]). The proper procedure should have been for the plaintiff to move to vacate the order and appealed as of right if that motion was denied (CPLR 5701 [a] [3]). Given questions surrounding the status of the arbitration hearing, this procedure ensures that the appeal will be made on a suitable record after counsel have had an opportunity to be heard (Davidson v Regan Fund Mgt. Ltd., 15 AD3d 172 [2005]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 363, 841 N.Y.S.2d 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/person-v-einhorn-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack