Doris v. Calia

• Citation: 222 A.D.2d 550,635 N.Y.S.2d 267
• Parties: Mary Ellen DORIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Vito CALIA, Defendant-Respondent, Karen E. Passannante, et al., Appellants.
• Decision Date: 18 December 1995
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 267

635 N.Y.S.2d 267

222 A.D.2d 550

Mary Ellen DORIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Vito CALIA, Defendant-Respondent Karen E. Passannante, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Dec. 18, 1995.

Curtis, Zaklukiewicz, Vasile, Devine & McElhenny, Merrick (Michael G. Mehary, of counsel), for appellants.

Spota, O'Rourke & Ammerman, Hauppauge (James J. O'Rourke, of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.

Michael F.X. Manning, Garden City (James J. Toomey, Jr., of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, RITTER, FRIEDMANN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Karen E. Passannante and John T. Passannante appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Emilio, J.), dated September 6, 1994, which (1) denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the codefendant Vito Calia and (2) denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the codefendant's cross claim.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the codefendant Vito Calia is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the cross motion of the appellants for summary judgment is granted, and the plaintiffs' complaint and the codefendant's cross claim are dismissed.

The appellants are not aggrieved by so much of the order dated September 6, 1994, as denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the codefendant Vito Calia (see, CPLR 5511; Candela v. Port Motors, Inc., 208 A.D.2d 486, 617 N.Y.S.2d 49; Yule v. Town of Huntington, 204 A.D.2d 439, 611 N.Y.S.2d 652; Board of Mgrs. of Riverview at Coll. Point Condominium III v. Schorr Bros. Dev. Corp., 182 A.D.2d 664, 582 N.Y.S.2d 258; Dublin v. Prime, 168 A.D.2d 597, 563 N.Y.S.2d 674; Lackner v. Roth, 166 A.D.2d 686, 561 N.Y.S.2d 279; Hauser v. North Rockland Central School District No. 1, 166 A.D.2d 553, 560 N.Y.S.2d 835; Nunez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 139 A.D.2d 712, 527 N.Y.S.2d 467; Sikora v. Keillor, 17 A.D.2d 6, 230 N.Y.S.2d 571, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 610, 240 N.Y.S.2d 601, 191 N.E.2d 88; Schultz v. Alfred, 11 A.D.2d 266, 268, 203 N.Y.S.2d 201).

We reverse the remainder of the...