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
THE CREDIT BID IN THIS UCC FORECLOSURE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW WHAT A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE BID SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURSUANT TO UCC 9-615 (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIM DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS OF COURT OF CLAIMS ACT 11 AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA CONSTITUTED DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT.
Psychological Injury Stemming from Witnessing the Aftermath of a Suicide Deemed Compensable
Intra-Agency Exemption Applied to FOIL Request About AIG Prosecution
EVIDENCE OF THE CHILD VICTIM’S REPUTATION FOR UNTRUTHFULNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEXUAL OFFENSES CASE; THE RELIABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE, A QUESTION OF LAW, WAS ESTABLISHED, THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE IS A JURY QUESTION (THIRD DEPT).
TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.
Claimant, Who Worked from Her Home Pursuant to a Consulting Agreement, Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

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...