Quarcini v. National Fuel Gas Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quarcini v. National Fuel Gas Co.

84 A.D.3d 1732, 922 N.Y.S.2d 837

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 6, 2011·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, [1733] Sr., A.J.), entered February 16, 2010 in a personal injury action. The decision found plaintiff to be entitled to summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: In this Labor Law and common-law negligence action, defendants purport to appeal from an order granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The appeal must be dismissed because that order is not included in the record on appeal (see Rodriquez v Chapman-Perry, 63 AD3d 645 [2009]), and “ £[n]o appeal lies from a mere decision’ ” (Pecora v Lawrence, 28 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2006]; see Harvey v Gaulin [appeal No. 2], 68 AD3d 1789 [2009]). Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Lindley, Gorski and Martoche, JJ. [Prior Case History: 27 Misc 3d 478.]

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

Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, [1733] Sr., A.J.), entered February 16, 2010 in a personal injury action. The decision found plaintiff to be entitled to summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: In this Labor Law and common-law negligence action, defendants purport to appeal from an order granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The appeal must be dismissed because that order is not included in the record on appeal (see Rodriquez v Chapman-Perry, 63 AD3d 645 [2009]), and “ £[n]o appeal lies from a mere decision’ ” (Pecora v Lawrence, 28 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2006]; see Harvey v Gaulin [appeal No. 2], 68 AD3d 1789 [2009]). Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Lindley, Gorski and Martoche, JJ. [Prior Case History: 27 Misc 3d 478.]

Quarcini v. National Fuel Gas Co., 84 A.D.3d 1732, 922 N.Y.S.2d 837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

84 A.D.3d 1732 (Quarcini v. National Fuel Gas Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related