Dimarev.O'Rourke

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second DepartmentDec 5, 2006
825 N.Y.S.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
825 N.Y.S.2d 27335 A.D.3d 3462006 N.Y. Slip Op. 9153

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Kone v. Martin

    …The order, without a hearing, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the subject child.ORDERED…

  • Unitrin v. Duclaire

    …for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 368 US 290). Since the appellants were not aggrieved within the…

lock 5 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 2004-00666.

December 5, 2006.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated December 12, 2003, which conditionally granted that branch of the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 which was to dismiss the complaint unless the plaintiffs appeared for depositions on or before January 16, 2004, and for physical examinations on or before January 30, 2004, denied that branch of their cross motion which was to vacate a prior order of the same court dated July 30, 2003, directing the plaintiff's to appear for depositions on or before August 13, 2003, and to undergo physical examinations on or before August 8, 2003, and, in effect, granted that branch of their cross motion which was to set new dates for depositions and physical examinations.

The Edelsteins, Faegenburg Brown, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Paul J. Edelstein and Louis A. Badolato of counsel), for appellants.

Faust Goetz Schenker Blee, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Mary Joseph and Erica L. Weisler of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 5511, only an aggrieved party may appeal from an order or judgment. To be "aggrieved," the party must have "a direct interest in the controversy which is affected by the result," and the adjudication must have "a binding force against the rights, person or property of the party" ( Matter of Richmond County Socy. for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 11 AD2d 236, 239, affd 9 NY2d 913; see Hayden v Catholic Home Bur., 298 AD2d 557). Since the plaintiffs were not aggrieved within the meaning of CPLR 5511 by the order appealed from which, in effect, granted that branch of their cross motion which was to set new dates for depositions and physical examinations, the appeal must be dismissed ( see Matter of Meadowdale Assoc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Colonie, 70 NY2d 669; Jobco, Inc. v County of Nassau, 129 AD2d 614, 616).


An alternative to Lexis that does not break the bank.

Casetext does more than Lexis for less than $65 per month.