SEDITA, III, FRANK A. v. SACHA, MARK A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

SEDITA, III, FRANK A. v. SACHA, MARK A.

99 A.D.3d 1259, 951 N.Y.2d 459

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

DecidedOctober 5, 2012

DocketCA 12-00594

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 99 A.D.3d 1259 (SEDITA, III, FRANK A. v. SACHA, MARK A.) 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

SEDITA, III, FRANK A. v. SACHA, MARK A., 99 A.D.3d 1259, 951 N.Y.2d 459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

*1260 Memorandum: Although petitioners appeal from an order that purportedly “denied” their petition, they concede in their brief that Supreme Court “effectively granted the relief requested in the Verified Petition” and seek only to have certain language stricken from the order. Where, as here, the appealing parties have by their own concession “obtained the full relief sought, [they have] no grounds for appeal . . . This is so even where [they] disagree[ ] with the particular findings, rationale or the opinion supporting the order . . . , or where [they] failed to prevail on all the issues that had been raised” (Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 545 [1983]). “Merely because the order appealed from contains language or reasoning that a party deems adverse to its interests does not furnish a basis for standing to take an appeal” (Cholowsky v Civiletti, 69 AD3d 110, 116 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). We therefore agree with respondent that this appeal must be dismissed (see CPLR 5511).

We note that we have not addressed petitioners’ remaining contentions inasmuch as those contentions are raised for the first time in their reply brief and thus are not properly before this Court (see generally Matter of State of New York v Zimmer [appeal No. 4], 63 AD3d 1563, 1564 [2009]; Turner v Canale, 15 AD3d 960, 961 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 702 [2005]). Present— Scudder, PJ., Smith, Fahey and Lindley, JJ.

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

*1260 Memorandum: Although petitioners appeal from an order that purportedly “denied” their petition, they concede in their brief that Supreme Court “effectively granted the relief requested in the Verified Petition” and seek only to have certain language stricken from the order. Where, as here, the appealing parties have by their own concession “obtained the full relief sought, [they have] no grounds for appeal . . . This is so even where [they] disagree[ ] with the particular findings, rationale or the opinion supporting the order . . . , or where [they] failed to prevail on all the issues that had been raised” (Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 545 [1983]). “Merely because the order appealed from contains language or reasoning that a party deems adverse to its interests does not furnish a basis for standing to take an appeal” (Cholowsky v Civiletti, 69 AD3d 110, 116 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). We therefore agree with respondent that this appeal must be dismissed (see CPLR 5511).

We note that we have not addressed petitioners’ remaining contentions inasmuch as those contentions are raised for the first time in their reply brief and thus are not properly before this Court (see generally Matter of State of New York v Zimmer [appeal No. 4], 63 AD3d 1563, 1564 [2009]; Turner v Canale, 15 AD3d 960, 961 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 702 [2005]). Present— Scudder, PJ., Smith, Fahey and Lindley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 1259, 951 N.Y.2d 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sedita-iii-frank-a-v-sacha-mark-a-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack