From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aronov v. Gard. Apart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 2006
34 A.D.3d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-07601.

November 8, 2006.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated June 29, 2005, which granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss so much of the plaintiffs cause of action as sought to recover damages for wrongful death.

Before: Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs, as the plaintiff is not aggrieved by the order appealed from ( see CPLR 5511).

CPLR 3211 (a) permits a party to move, on certain enumerated grounds, "for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him [or her]." The defendants here moved to dismiss, as time-barred, only so much of the plaintiffs single cause of action as sought to recover damages for wrongful death. In disposing of the motion, the order appealed from articulated the Supreme Court's determination in sufficient detail ( see CPLR 2219), and thus made clear that so much of the plaintiffs cause of action as sought to recover damages for her decedent's conscious pain and suffering was not dismissed. Rather, upon dismissal, that portion of the cause of action which sought to recover damages for wrongful death was effectively severed from that portion of the cause of action which sought to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering ( see Tow v Moore, 24 AD2d 648, 649; Forse v Turner, 55 Misc 2d 810, 812; cf. Zivian v McNulty, 136 AD2d 547, 548; see also Behren v Papworth, 30 NY2d 532; Sirlin Plumbing Co. v Maple Hill Homes, 20 NY2d 401, 402-403; but cf. Burke v Crosson, 85 NY2d 10, 16 ). Accordingly, so much of the cause of action as sought to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering remains viable, and the plaintiff is not barred from litigating it. In light of the foregoing, and because the plaintiff did not register opposition to the dismissal of so much of her cause of action as sought to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff is not aggrieved by the order appealed from ( see CPLR 5511; Whiteman v Yeshiva Mesivta Torah Temimah, 255 AD2d 378, 379; Ciaccio v Germin, 138 AD2d 664, 665).


Summaries of

Aronov v. Gard. Apart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 2006
34 A.D.3d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Aronov v. Gard. Apart

Case Details

Full title:ROSA ARONOV, Appellant, v. REGENCY GARDENS APARTMENTS CORP. et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 8, 2006

Citations

34 A.D.3d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8076
823 N.Y.S.2d 542

Citing Cases

Illery v. Oxford Nursing Home, Inc.

Since a cause of action for negligence or to recover upon a liability created or imposed by statute was…

Edelman v. Greuner

Clearly, Movants do not seek to dismiss a cause of action; instead they seek to strike a single paragraph.…