Wang v. Marano

2024 NY Slip Op 01280

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: March 12, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 651109/22 Appeal No. 1840 Case No. 2023-00341
• Status: Published

Opinion

Wang v Marano (2024 NY Slip Op 01280)

Wang v Marano

2024 NY Slip Op 01280

Decided on March 12, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: March 12, 2024
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Moulton, Scarpulla, Pitt-Burke, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

Index No. 651109/22 Appeal No. 1840 Case No. 2023-00341

[*1]Jia Wang et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

Anthony T.J. Marano et al., Defendants-Respondents, 4-6 West 14th Street Ventures LLC, Defendants.

Jia Wang appellant pro se.

Zehua Yu and Yayin Jia, New York, for Gia Wang LLC, appellant.

Press Koral LLP, New York (Matthew J. Press of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered December 20, 2022, which denied defendants' motion to compel production but did not address plaintiffs' cross-motion for, among other things, default judgment against defendants, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to remand to Supreme Court for the express disposition of plaintiffs' cross-motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

It is unclear whether the motion court exercised its inherent discretion with respect to plaintiffs' cross-motion for default judgment against defendants or considered any of the documentary evidence submitted by plaintiffs to support their request for dismissal of the counterclaim. Accordingly, we remand for express disposition of plaintiffs' cross-motion (see United Airlines v Ogden N.Y. Servs., 305 AD2d 239, 240 [1st Dept 2003]; see also Knight v City of New York, 179 AD3d 456, 457 [1st Dept 2020]). We note that plaintiffs have since purported to assign Gia Wang LLC's (GWLLC) claims to plaintiff Jia Wang, which may render some of the issues regarding whether GWLLC could be represented by nonattorney Wang in this appeal moot (see CPLR 321[a]; see Kinlay v Henley, 57 AD3d 219, 220 [1st Dept 2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 12, 2024