| Yaroslav Hlum v Stacy Makhnevich |
| Motion No: 2025-01187 KC |
| Slip Opinion No: 2026 NY Slip Op 62039(U) |
| Decided on January 27, 2026 |
| Appellate Term, 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. |
of the State of New York for the 2nd, 11th & 13th Judicial Districts
WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J.
MARINA CORA MUNDY
LISA S. OTTLEY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
| Yaroslav Hlum, Respondent, v Stacy Makhnevich, Appellant. |
Motion by appellant for leave to appeal from orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered May 22, 2025 and June 18, 2025, respectively, and other related relief.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion seeking leave to appeal from the May 22, 2025 order under appeal No. 2025-1187 K C is denied as leave is not required to appeal from so much of the May 22, 2025 order as granted respondent's motion to amend (see CCA 1702 [a] [2]) and appellant is not aggrieved by so much of that order as adjourned appellant's cross motion (CCA 1702 [a] [2]; Fisher v Ives, 251 AD2d 1022 [1998]); and it further,
ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that the appeal from the order entered June 18, 2025 under appeal No. 2025-1187 K C is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that the appeal from the order entered July 24, 2025 under appeal No. 2025-1474 K C is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon
the consent of the appealing party since that party is not aggrieved thereby (see Gelin v New York
City Tr. Auth., 189 AD3d 789 [2020]; CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the remaining branches of these motions are denied.
ENTER:
Jennifer Chan
Chief Clerk