Steinhardt Group, Inc. v. Citicorp
| Decision Date | 27 March 2003 |
| Parties | STEINHARDT GROUP, INC., et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>CITICORP et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The notice of appeal from the December 20, 2001 order, not having been filed within 30 days of service of the order with notice of its entry, was untimely and the appeal must therefore be dismissed (see CPLR 5513; Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57, 61 [1983]; and see CPLR 5514). Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, the December 20, 2001 order did not become appealable only after the denial of plaintiffs' subsequent motion purporting to seek vacatur of the December 20, 2001 order; the December 20, 2001 order denying plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint was appealable as of right from the time of its entry (see e.g. Daigle v Texas Intl. Co., 109 AD2d 648, 649 [1985]). Nor was the order initially nonappealable by reason of the sua sponte dismissal, plaintiffs' motion having been "on notice" (cf. Nedell v Sprigman, 227 AD2d 163 [1996]). We note, moreover, that even if the order had been nonappealable upon the grounds cited in Nedell, the order would not thereafter have become appealable upon the denial of a subsequent motion to vacate; the only appealable paper in that circumstance would have been the order denying vacatur (see id.). It may be noted as well that, notwithstanding the circumstance that the relief afforded in the December 20, 2001 order was sua sponte, the basis for the relief, namely, nonjoinder of a necessary party plaintiff the claims of which against defendants were time-barred, was fully litigated in the context of plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to name the nonjoined party as a plaintiff.
Although denominated a motion to vacate the sua sponte dismissal, plaintiffs' subsequent motion was, properly viewed, one to reargue the prior order (cf. id.), and the denial of the subsequent motion in the July 19, 2002 order was, accordingly, nonappealable (see Federation of Puerto Rican Orgs. of Brownsville v Mateo, 235 AD2d 326 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 844 [1997]).
Were the appeals properly before us, we would affirm. Steinhardt Realty, although not joined during the four-year pendency of this action, was a necessary party, indeed the sole real party in interest, the named plaintiffs, although suing for fraud, having neither relied on the alleged misrepresentations nor sustained resulting damages (see King v George Schonberg & Co., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2007 NY Slip Op 33324(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 10/5/2007)
... ... Nat'l. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Ferrell & Myers, Inc., Index No. 117606/1996 (Sup, Ct. N.Y. County) ("Nat'l Union"). The Nat'l ... Zurich-American Ins. Group, 27 A.D.3d 609, 611, 811 N.Y.S.2d 773, 774 (2nd Dept. 2006) ... ...
-
Harasim v. Eljin Constr. of N.Y., Inc.
...it offers no explanation for its delay. Accordingly, its appeal must be dismissed to the extent indicated ( Steinhardt Group v. Citicorp, 303 A.D.2d 326, 326, 757 N.Y.S.2d 537 [1st Dept. 2003], lv. denied100 N.Y.2d 506, 763 N.Y.S.2d 811, 795 N.E.2d 37 [2003];see Hecht v. City of New York, 6......
-
Matter of Yalowitz v. Prudential Equity Group LLC, 2006 NY Slip Op 30519(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 3/28/2006)
...sought and denied in the earlier cross-motion, the Court views the present motion as a motion to reargue. See Steinhardt Group, Inc. v. Citicorp, 303 A.D.2d 326 (1st Dept. 2003)(although not denominated as such, plaintiffs' subsequent motion was properly viewed as one to reargue prior order......
-
Johnson v. Banner Int'l Corp.
...his complaint. Accordingly, the order denying plaintiff's subsequent motion is nonappealable (see Steinhardt Group v. Citicorp, 303 A.D.2d 326, 326–327, 757 N.Y.S.2d 537 [1st Dept.2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 506, 763 N.Y.S.2d 811, 795 N.E.2d 37 [2003] ; Federation of Puerto Rican Orgs. of ......