Opinion
2019–06531 Index No. 605594/15
04-21-2021
Emmanuel RENE, et al., respondents, v. Gregory D. ABRAMS, etc., et al., appellants.
Gregory D. Abram & Associates, P.C., sued herein as Gregory D. Abrams & Associates, Floral Park, N.Y. (Gregory Dale Abram, sued herein as Gregory D. Abrams, pro se of counsel), appellant pro se and for appellant Gregory D. Abrams. Dell & Dean, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Joshua Weinstock of counsel), for respondents.
Gregory D. Abram & Associates, P.C., sued herein as Gregory D. Abrams & Associates, Floral Park, N.Y. (Gregory Dale Abram, sued herein as Gregory D. Abrams, pro se of counsel), appellant pro se and for appellant Gregory D. Abrams.
Dell & Dean, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Joshua Weinstock of counsel), for respondents.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Anna R. Anzalone, J.), entered March 27, 2019. The order, upon an amended order of the same court entered November 18, 2016, inter alia, granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, and after an inquest on the issue of damages, directed payment of the sum of $9,000 in damages to the plaintiff Emmanuel Rene and payment of the sum of $1,000 in damages to the plaintiff Danica Drakes.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
An order which does not decide a motion made on notice is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2] ; Sholes v. Meagher, 100 N.Y.2d 333, 335, 763 N.Y.S.2d 522, 794 N.E.2d 664 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Brown, 186 A.D.3d 1195, 127 N.Y.S.3d 871 ), and we decline to grant leave to appeal. While the defendants seek appellate review of the Supreme Court's determination of damages after an inquest, they failed to include the relevant papers and transcripts to enable meaningful appellate review of that issue (see CPLR 5526 ; Rubio–Modica v. Modica, 100 A.D.3d 979, 954 N.Y.S.2d 478 ; Keita v. United Parcel Serv., 65 A.D.3d 571, 572, 884 N.Y.S.2d 139 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.