| Baron v Baron |
| Motion No: 2007-06734 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2007 NYSlipOp 83445(U) |
| Decided on November 13, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M62274
E/sl
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
DAVID S. RITTER
PETER B. SKELOS
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2007-06734, 2007-06735, 2007-06736, 2007-09396, 2007-10141 Wendy Baron, appellant, v Stephen A. Baron, respondent, et al., defendant. (Appeal Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5) Wendy Baron, appellant-respondent, v Stephen A. Baron, respondent-appellant, et al., defendant. (Appeal No. 3) (Index No. 201384/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by Wendy Baron on appeals from a decision of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 21, 2006, and three orders of the same court dated December 8, 2006, August 21, 2007, and October 5, 2007, respectively, and an appeal and cross appeal from a judgment of the same court entered June 19, 2007, inter alia, for leave to appeal from the order dated August 21, 2007, in effect, for leave to appeal from so much of the order dated October 5, 2007, as directed a hearing "to determine which party has responsibility for those escrow funds which have been misappropriated," to stay that hearing pending hearing and determination of the appeals, and to reinstate the pendente lite award and stays previously ordered by the Supreme Court, Nassau County.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branches of the motion which are for leave to appeal from the order dated August 21, 2007 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2007-10141), and, in effect, for leave to appeal from so much of the order dated October 5, 2007 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2007-09396), as directed a hearing "to determine which party has responsibility for those escrow funds which have been misappropriated," are denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appeal from the decision dated November 21, 2006 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2007-06734), is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appeal from the order dated December 8, 2006 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2007-06735), is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies as of right from an order that is not the result of a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701), and we decline to grant leave to appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appeal purportedly taken as of right from the order dated August 21, 2007 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2007-10141), is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies as of right from an order that does not affect a substantial right (see CPLR 5701[a],[c]); and it is further,
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appeal purportedly taken as of right from so much of the order dated October 5, 2007 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2007-09396), as directed a hearing is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies as of right from an order that does not affect a substantial right (see CPLR 5701[a],[c]; Espie v Murphy, 35 AD3d 346); and it is further,
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appeal and cross appeal from the judgment entered June 19, 2007 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2007-06736), are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as academic on the ground that the judgment was vacated by the order dated October 5, 2007; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to stay the hearing "to determine which party has responsibility for those escrow funds which have been misappropriated" is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to reinstate the pendente lite award and stays previously ordered by the Supreme Court, Nassau County, is denied without prejudice to seeking the same relief in the Supreme Court, Nassau County; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.
MILLER, J.P., RITTER, SKELOS and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court