From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hirsch v. Cty of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 26, 2006
32 A.D.3d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-03983.

September 26, 2006.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated December 22, 2004, as failed to determine that branch of its cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Norman Corenthal of counsel), for appellant.

Mitchell Barnett, Garden City, N.Y., for plaintiff-respondent.

Before: Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ.


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The only issue raised by the defendant City of New York on its appeal concerns that branch of its cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Inasmuch as the Supreme Court failed to determine that branch of the cross motion, it remains pending and undecided and thus we dismiss the appeal ( see Matter of Flood v Schopfer, 20 AD3d 417; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543).


Summaries of

Hirsch v. Cty of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 26, 2006
32 A.D.3d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Hirsch v. Cty of N.Y

Case Details

Full title:JEWEL HIRSCH, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, and CONSOLIDATED…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 26, 2006

Citations

32 A.D.3d 995 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 6830
820 N.Y.S.2d 889

Citing Cases

Studer v. Newpointe Estates Condo.

The appeal by the Newpointe defendants from so much of the order entered April 14, 2015, as did not decide…

Fed. Ins. Co. v. A-Tech Concrete Co.

n a subrogation action to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant A–Tech Concrete Company,…