Opinion
2015-03-20
Kathleen BENEDETTI, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Eric Smith, Deceased, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ERIE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Ricotta & Visco, Buffalo (Frank C. Callocchia of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Hogan Willig, PLLC, Amherst (Randy Mallaber of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
Ricotta & Visco, Buffalo (Frank C. Callocchia of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Hogan Willig, PLLC, Amherst (Randy Mallaber of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, and VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice and wrongful death action, and Erie County Medical Center Corporation (defendant) subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on two grounds, i.e., plaintiff's failure to comply with conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit ( seePublic Authorities Law § 3641[1] ), and Supreme Court's lack of personal jurisdiction over it ( seeCPLR 306–b). The court granted the motion only on the ground that plaintiff failed to comply with conditions precedent to this lawsuit, and in its written decision did not address the alternative ground for the motion. Defendant contends on appeal that the court should have granted the motion on the alternative ground as well, i.e., lack of personal jurisdiction, but we conclude that defendant's appeal from the order must be dismissed. A “party [that] has successfully obtained a[n] ... order in [its] favor is not aggrieved by it, and, consequently, has no need and, in fact, no right to appeal” (Parochial Bus Sys. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 539, 544, 470 N.Y.S.2d 564, 458 N.E.2d 1241; seeCPLR 5511). Indeed, “the concept of aggrievement is about whether relief was granted or withheld, and not about the reasons therefor” (Mixon v. TBV, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 144, 149, 904 N.Y.S.2d 132; see Hodge v. Baptiste, 114 A.D.3d 830, 831, 980 N.Y.S.2d 806). In other words, if the appellant “received all the relief it requested, [it is] not aggrieved, even though the court may have made some finding of fact or ruling of law with which [the appellant is] dissatisfied” (mixon, 76 a.d.3d at 148–149, 904 n.y.s.2d 132). here, defendant Received all the relief it requested, which was dismissal of the complaint against it ( see e.g. Ullmannglass v. Oneida, Ltd., 121 A.D.3d 1371, 1372 n. 2, 995 N.Y.S.2d 776; Ford v. Rifenburg, 94 A.D.3d 1285, 1285 n. 1, 942 N.Y.S.2d 285; Gross v. Kurk, 224 A.D.2d 582, 583, 639 N.Y.S.2d 711).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.