You are here: / / THE FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A...
, ,

THE FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION; AN APPELLATE COURT MUST REMIT FOR A RULING BY THE TRIAL COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a ruling, noted that a judge’s failure to rule on a trial order of dismissal motion does not constitute a denial of the motion. Therefore an appellate court cannot rule on the evidentiary issue raised in the motion and must send the matter back for a ruling:

The failure of a trial court to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal cannot be deemed a denial of that motion, and thus we must hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion … . People v Kohmescher, 2024 NY Slip Op 03287, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Because the failure to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal is not a denial of the motion an appellate court cannot address the issue and must remit for a ruling by the trial court.

 

You might also like
STORM IN PROGRESS RULE REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, FAILURE TO REMOVE ALL SNOW FROM A PARKING LOT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD.
HERE PETITIONERS’ HOUSE WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE AND THE COURT-ORDERED APPRAISAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS WAS SET ASIDE THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE PETITIONERS; THE PETITIONERS WERE THEN ENTITLED TO SUE TO SEEK FULL RECOVERY UNDER THE INSURANCE POLICY; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED FURTHER APPRAISAL PROCEEDINGS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
County Must Seek a Medical Income Execution Order (to Pay for a Child’s Health Insurance) Where No Medical Income Execution Order Has Yet Been Issued in the Case
DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ENTRY INTO HIS HOME (THE PAYTON ISSUE); THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR (FOURTH DEPT).
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THE SIX ‘LURING A CHILD’ CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Construction Manager Not Liable Under Labor Law 241(6), Labor Law 200, or Under Common Law Negligence/No Control Over Work or Responsibility for the Premises

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

THE JURY REQUESTED A READBACK OF BOTH THE DIRECT AND THE CROSS; THE JUDGE ONLY... OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RULING ON WHETHER...