You are here: / / NO APPEAL LIES FROM DECLINING TO SIGN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (FIRST DE...
,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM DECLINING TO SIGN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that no appeal lies from declining to sign an order to show cause:

No appeal lies from an order declining to sign an order to show cause, since it is an ex parte order that does not decide a motion made on notice (CPLR 5701[a][2] … ). To the extent defendant seeks review of the ex parte order pursuant to CPLR 5704, such relief is denied. Review under CPLR 5704 would not, in any event, address the merits of the motion defendant sought to make by order to show cause … .

To the extent defendant contends that we should review the order or grant leave to appeal in the interest of justice, we decline to do so. Chi Young Lee v Osorio, 2020 NY Slip Op 03186, First Dept 6-4-20

 

You might also like
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ORAL CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE EVEN IF THE TRIGGERING EVENT OCCURRED AFTER A YEAR, THE CONTRACT WAS WITHIN THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS AND THEREFORE MUST IN BE WRITING (FIRST DEPT).
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF RUSTED CONDITION OF STAIRCASE WHICH COLLAPSED DEMONSTRATED WITH PHOTOGRAPHS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A TEXAS RESIDENT WHO WAS A FLIGHT ATTENDANT FOR 30 YEARS WITH MONTHLY STAY-OVERS IN NEW YORK, DEMONSTRATED NEW YORK HAD LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED TALCUM POWDER PLAINTIFF USED; THE TALCUM POWDER ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S MESOTHELIOMA (FIRST DEPT).
Statute of Limitations Starts When the Alleged Malpractice Occurred, Not When Plaintiff Becomes Aware of It/Continuous Representation Doctrine Can Not Be Invoked to Toll Statute of Limitations When Plaintiff Was Notified Representation Was Formally Closed
Res Ipsa Loquitur Need Not Be Pled and Should Have Been Applied.
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF FELL 13 OR 14 FEET FROM THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK.
PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER WAS INJURED WHEN HE BECAME DEHYDRATED DURING TRAINING; HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS BECAUSE THE INJURY DID NOT OCCUR AS A RESULT OF AN UNEXPECTED EVENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS ATTORNEY’S FEES DISPUTE WHETHER THERE WAS AN ORAL AGREEMENT TO RETURN THE UNEXHAUSTED PORTION OF THE RETAINER PAID BY PLAINTIFF AND WHETHER THE VOLUNTARY PAYMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED (FIRST 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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS ENABLING THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL... PETITIONER WAS INITIALLY APPROVED FOR PAROLE, BUT AFTER THE VICTIM IMPACT HEARING...