You are here: / / APPELLANT WAS NOT AGGRIEVED BY SUPREME COURT’S DECISION WHICH DENIED...
, ,

APPELLANT WAS NOT AGGRIEVED BY SUPREME COURT’S DECISION WHICH DENIED HER MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE PENDING FURTHER DISCOVERY; THEREFORE THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the plaintiff’s Joan and Christopher Porco were not aggrieved by Supreme Court’s ruling and therefore could not appeal it. The underlying action alleges Civil Rights Law (right to privacy) violations related to a film made by defendant about a crime committed by Christopher Porco. The complaint alleged the film had been republished making the action timely. Supreme Court denied the motion without prejudice to try again after discovery:

Christopher Porco is not an aggrieved party. Defendant’s motion sought dismissal of only those claims asserted by Joan Porco. In other words, defendant did not seek any relief against Christopher Porco. Supreme Court likewise did not grant defendant any relief against him. Accordingly, Christopher Porco has no basis to appeal from the February 2018 order.

Regarding Joan Porco, Supreme Court held that she could not rely on the relation back doctrine for her claims in the amended complaint to be timely asserted. The court nonetheless denied defendant’s motion without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery after considering plaintiffs’ republication argument. … Accordingly, the court neither granted defendant any affirmative relief against Joan Porco nor withheld any affirmative relief requested by Joan Porco. Indeed, the only affirmative relief sought by Joan Porco was for leave to serve a second amended complaint, which the court granted and is not contested on appeal. Because Joan Porco was not granted incomplete relief, the exception to the aggrievement requirement … does not apply in this case.

Furthermore, a party is not aggrieved when his or her interests are only remotely or contingently affected by the order appealed from … . Although Joan Porco’s claims are subject to dismissal in the future given that Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion without prejudice to renew, it is possible that defendant may never seek to renew its motion. And, even if defendant did move to renew, we can only surmise at this juncture how the court would decide it. Finally, to the extent that Joan Porco is dissatisfied with the court’s rationale concerning the relation back doctrine, such dissatisfaction does not make her an aggrieved party … . Porco v Lifetime Entertainment Servs., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07122, Third Dept 10-3-19

 

You might also like
Claimant Did Not Demonstrate a Compelling Reason to Close His Business—Unemployment Insurance Benefits Denied
THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT), ​
Failure to Strictly Comply with Notice Rules of the Real Property Tax Law Required Dismissal of the Challenge to the Tax Assessment/Criteria for Review of Competing Expert Evidence of Valuation Explained
BOTH THE INDICTMENT AND THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION CHARGED CRIMES WITH THE ELEMENT THAT THE VICTIM WAS LESS THAN 17; BOTH HAD THE WRONG BIRTH DATE FOR THE VICTIM WHICH THEREBY ALLEGED THE VICTIM WAS MORE THAN 17; THAT IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY AMENDMENT (THIRD DEPT). ​
CLAIMANT PROPERLY AWARDED 100% SLU FOR FOUR AMPUTATED FINGERS AND AN ADDITIONAL 100% SLU FOR THE REATTACHED NONFUNCTIONAL THUMB.
SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE OPPOSING PARTY 3RD DEPT.
Delay In Bringing Action Seeking to Stop a Development Project Which Had Been Proceeding for Years Precluded the Grant of a Preliminary Injunction, Despite the Apparent Legitimate Nature of the Allegations
CLAIMANT, AN AGENT LICENSED TO SELL LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT PRODUCTS, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BROKER-DEALER AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (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

NEW JERSEY PAROLEE’S CONSENT TO SEARCH AS A CONDITION OF PAROLE DID NOT... RESTITUTION ORDERED AT SENTENCING (ABOUT $45OO) WAS ABOUT $500 HIGHER THAN THE...