From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Iodice v. White Plains

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 2009
60 A.D.3d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2007-11079.

March 10, 2009.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for injury to property, the defendant City of White Plains appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (O. Bellantoni, J.), entered November 18, 2007, which granted the plaintiffs' motion, among other things, to adjudicate it in contempt of court to the extent of directing a hearing on the issue of its alleged violation of an order entered May 31, 2007.

Joseph A. Maria, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Ritter and Miller, JJ.


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

An order directing a judicial hearing on a motion to adjudicate a party in contempt does not decide the motion, nor does it affect a substantial right ( see CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]) and is, therefore, not appealable as a matter of right ( see Sloboda v Sloboda, 24 AD3d 533, 534; Liebling v Yankwitt, 109 AD2d 780). Moreover, we decline to grant leave to appeal from the order. Accordingly, the instant appeal must be dismissed ( see Kornblum v Kornblum, 34 AD3d 749, 751; Palma v Palma, 101 AD2d 812).


Summaries of

Iodice v. White Plains

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 2009
60 A.D.3d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Iodice v. White Plains

Case Details

Full title:JOHN IODICE et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, Appellant, et…

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

Date published: Mar 10, 2009

Citations

60 A.D.3d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 1775
873 N.Y.S.2d 920

Citing Cases

US Bank National Ass'n v. Cange

The appeal from the order dated September 20, 2011, must be dismissed, as it was superseded by the order…

Sindoni v. Bd. of Educ. of Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist.

It is hereby ORDERED that respondent's cross motion is granted to the extent that appeal No. 2 is dismissed…