You are here: / / ORDER WHICH IS NOT ISSUED PURSUANT TO A MOTION ON NOTICE IS NOT APPEALABLE,...
,

ORDER WHICH IS NOT ISSUED PURSUANT TO A MOTION ON NOTICE IS NOT APPEALABLE, A MOTION TO VACATE IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE.

 

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that an order which is not issued pursuant to a motion on notice is not appealable. The proper procedure is to move to vacate the order and, if the motion is denied, appeal the denial:

… [P]laintiff followed the appropriate procedure in moving to vacate the … order. Contrary to Supreme Court’s determination, plaintiff could not have challenged the order by taking a direct appeal. As the order was made in response to plaintiff’s letter and did not decide a motion made upon notice, it was not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]…). Such an order is properly challenged by moving on notice for vacatur, as plaintiff did here, and then by taking an appeal as of right if the requested relief is denied (see CPLR 5701 [a] [3]…). Thus, the court should have addressed the merits of plaintiff’s motion to vacate the … order, and the application should not have been denied based upon the standards applicable to motions pursuant to CPLR 5015 and 2221. Novastar Mtge., Inc. v Melius, 2016 NY Slip Op 08928, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

You might also like
Arbitrator Did Not Have the Authority (CPLR 7511) to Modify an Award by Adding Interest, Even If Interest Should Have Been Awarded as a Matter of Law
Behavior Did Not Warrant Removal from Hearing
AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Nonowner Occupied and Controlled Premises Where Plaintiff Fell
MOTIONS IN LIMINE WHICH AFFECT THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL ARE APPEALABLE; TWO-YEAR WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE MUNICIPALITIES; PRECLUDING EXPERT TESTIMONY BASED UPON DISCLOSURE DEFICIENCIES WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (THIRD DEPT).
TRANSFERS MADE WITHIN FIVE YEARS JUSTIFIED FIVE MONTH PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID BENEFITS.
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INTOXICATED AND TRESPASSING, WAS INJURED FALLING THROUGH AN OPENING IN THE FLOOR OF A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S PRESENCE WAS FORESEEABLE AND PLAINTIFF’S INTOXICATION WAS NOT A SUPERSEDING CAUSE AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS ELECTION LAW CASE, THE SIGNATORIES’ NAMES WERE PRINTED ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION BUT WERE INSCRIBED ON THE VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ACCEPTED PROOF THAT THE SIGNATORIES WHOSE NAMES WERE PRINTED WERE IN FACT THE SAME AS THOSE WHOSE SIGNATURES WERE ON THE REGISTRATION FORMS (FOURTH 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

ATTORNEY, WHO WAS ACTING AS CO-COUNSEL WITH THE DISQUALIFIED LAWFIRM, WAS NOT... CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE ILLUSTRAT...