Smith v. United Church of Christ

95 A.D.3d 581, 943 N.Y.S.2d 530
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 10, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 581 (Smith v. United Church of Christ) 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
Smith v. United Church of Christ, 95 A.D.3d 581, 943 N.Y.S.2d 530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered February 25, 2011, which denied plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction, dismissed all causes of action against the United Church of Christ defendants, and dismissed all causes of action except the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth against defendants Rev. Nigel Pearce, Cynthia James Rodriguez, Alethia West, and Ivy Simons brought in plaintiffs individual capacity, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from oral rulings, same court and Justice, rendered February 24, 2011, August 10, 2011, and August 29, 2011, and a decision, same court and Justice, rendered January 19, 2011, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The court properly denied pro se plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction, and correctly dismissed all causes of action against the United Church of Christ defendants, and all causes of action except the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth against defendants Rev. Nigel Pearce, Cynthia James Rodriguez, Alethia West, and Ivy Simons, which it properly ruled may be maintained only in plaintiffs individual capacity.

[582]*582Plaintiffs purported appeals from various oral rulings of the court must be dismissed. No appeal lies from the court’s rulings in open court, as the transcripts were not “so-ordered” by the court (see Sanchez de Hernandez v Bank of Nova Scotia, 76 AD3d 929, 931 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]), and a number of findings on the record were superseded by a written order from which plaintiff did not appeal. Similarly, “no appeal lies from a decision directing ‘[s]ettle order’ ” (Hutchinson v City of New York, 18 AD3d 370 [2005]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30205(11).]

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

Related

26th LS Series Ltd. v. Brooks
2017 NY Slip Op 8487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Calinescu v. 167 LLC
125 A.D.3d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Macy's Inc. v. J.C. Penny Corp.
107 A.D.3d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 A.D.3d 581, 943 N.Y.S.2d 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-united-church-of-christ-nyappdiv-2012.