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
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WAS AN OWNER OR AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR LABOR LAW PURPOSES, PROPERTY MANAGER WAS NOT LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF (FIRST DEPT).
SELF-EXECUTING CONDITIONAL DISCOVERY ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE UPON NON-COMPLIANCE; A MOTION TO VACATE, NOT AN APPEAL, IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO CONTEST THE ORDER ON THE GROUND OF EXCUSABLE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS TOOK NO ACTION TO AVOID THE DEFAULT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD HE HAD BUILT COLLAPSED; DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF DID NOT FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PROPERLY BUILD THE SCAFFOLD; THE RECALCITRANT-WORKER DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NEVER PROVIDED WITH AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE AND PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WILL NOT DEFEAT A LABOR LAW 240(1) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL.
THE SORA RISK-LEVEL MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RE-OPENED THE HEARING TO AMEND ITS ORIGINAL RISK-LEVEL DETERMINATION; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET; THE “INHERENT AUTHORITY” TO RE-OPEN APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULING WAS BASED ON A MISTAKE; THE PEOPLE WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (FIRST DEPT).
RE: DETERMINING THE CORRECT JURISDICTION FOR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PURPOSES, THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION ALLEGING PURELY ECONOMIC INJURY IS USUALLY IN THE “PLACE OF INJURY,” WHICH IS USUALLY WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED AND PURCHASED A CONTROLLING INTEREST, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS.
THE CONTRACT WAS BETWEEN CORPORATIONS IN DIFFERENT STATES, THEREFORE INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS IMPLICATED AND THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) APPLIED; THE CONTRACT PROPERLY PROVIDED THAT THE ARBIRTRATOR, NOT A COURT, WILL DECIDE GATEWAY ISSUES OF ARBITRABILITY (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...