You are here: / / Order Not Appealable, Did Not Affect Substantial Right.
,

Order Not Appealable, Did Not Affect Substantial Right.

No appeal as of right lies from an order for an in camera inspection of documents (to address a discovery request) where the inspection had not yet been conducted.  “Inasmuch as the order does not affect a substantial right of plaintiff, no appeal as of right lies therefrom…”.  In addition, the Third Department determined that the facts alleged would not support an application for permission to appeal.  Soloman vs Meyer. 515208 Third Dept. 2-21-13

 

You might also like
COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
RESPONDENT, WHO HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BEFORE ADMITTING TO A PROBATION VIOLATION, THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION AND THE APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION (THIRD DEPT).
Statutory and Due-Process Criteria for Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over a Nondomiciliary Defendant Described
CLAIMANT PRECLUDED FROM FURTHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR FAILURE TO SEEK PERMISSION BEFORE SETTLING A RELATED TORT ACTION, MEANING OF THIRD PARTY ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED.
Review Criteria Re: Nonjury Trials Explained/Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law, Including the Provision Requiring the Exercise of Care to Avoid Colliding with Bicyclists, Constituted Negligence Per Se
HERE THE STUDENT WITH DISABILITIES WAS UNSUPERVISED IN GYM CLASS WHEN SHE WAS INJURED; THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT SUCCESSFULLY EXCLUDED EVIDENCE THAT MORE SUPERVISION OF THE STUDENT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE PURPORTEDLY CONFLICTED WITH THE STUDENT’S “AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 504 PLAN” (WHICH DID NOT CALL FOR EXTRA SUPERVISION) AND THEREFORE EXTRA SUPERVISION WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO DISCRIMINATION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT FINDING THAT THE 504 PLAN DID NOT ACT AS A CEILING FOR THE LEVEL OF SUPERVISION TO BE AFFORDED THE STUDENT AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD DESPITE RETURNING TO WORK AT PREINJURY WAGES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RISKS OF CONTINUING TO BE REPRESENTED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE PLEA PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE JUDGE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INFORMED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FORMER AND CURRENT CLIENTS WOULD BE WITNESSES AT DEFENDANT’S TRIAL, DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SORA Hearing Procedure. Tortious Interference with Contract.