Benedetti v. Erie Cnty. Med. Ctr. Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 March 2015
• Docket Number: 115 CA 14-01114
• Citation: 5 N.Y.S.3d 746,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02247,126 A.D.3d 1322
• Parties: 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.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

126 A.D.3d 1322

5 N.Y.S.3d 746

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02247

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.

115 CA 14-01114

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

March 20, 2015.

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.

OpinionMEMORANDUM:

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 (see Public Authorities Law § 3641[1] ), and Supreme Court's lack of personal jurisdiction over it (see CPLR 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 ; see CPLR 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, ...