Rehab v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rehab v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

238 A.D.2d 289, 657 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4279

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

DecidedApril 29, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 289 (Rehab v. New York City Commission on Human Rights) 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

Rehab v. New York City Commission on Human Rights, 238 A.D.2d 289, 657 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal [290]*290from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Fern FisherBrandveen, J.), entered March 15, 1996, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate a default judgment, entered November 3, 1995, granting petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to the extent of remanding the matter to respondent, for a hearing, and from order, same court and Justice, entered November 18, 1996, which granted reargument but adhered to the prior order, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The appeals are from nonfinal orders in an article 78 proceeding that are not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [b] [1]). Leave to appeal has not been requested, and we do not deem this an appropriate instance to grant such relief sua sponte because, among other reasons, the denial of vacatur does not, under these circumstances, offend the broad policy preference for resolving cases on the merits (cf., Matter of Swartz v Wallach, 87 AD2d 926, 927), and the nonmunicipal persons who are charged by petitioner with discriminatory practices are not parties to the article 78 and their substantive rights will not be directly affected by the hearing that has been ordered (cf., Matter of Dukuly v Aponte, 204 AD2d 189). In view of the foregoing, we take no position with respect to the merits of the appeal. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Appeal [290]*290from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Fern FisherBrandveen, J.), entered March 15, 1996, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate a default judgment, entered November 3, 1995, granting petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to the extent of remanding the matter to respondent, for a hearing, and from order, same court and Justice, entered November 18, 1996, which granted reargument but adhered to the prior order, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The appeals are from nonfinal orders in an article 78 proceeding that are not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [b] [1]). Leave to appeal has not been requested, and we do not deem this an appropriate instance to grant such relief sua sponte because, among other reasons, the denial of vacatur does not, under these circumstances, offend the broad policy preference for resolving cases on the merits (cf., Matter of Swartz v Wallach, 87 AD2d 926, 927), and the nonmunicipal persons who are charged by petitioner with discriminatory practices are not parties to the article 78 and their substantive rights will not be directly affected by the hearing that has been ordered (cf., Matter of Dukuly v Aponte, 204 AD2d 189). In view of the foregoing, we take no position with respect to the merits of the appeal. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 289, 657 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rehab-v-new-york-city-commission-on-human-rights-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack