Kenyi Suriel et al., Plaintiffs, v. [And Other Actions] (2025)

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered April 4, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from, in denying the motion of defendants Manuel Felix Angamarca and Tully Environmental, Inc. (together, the Tully defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, made no determination as to the applicable standard of care, unanimously dismissed, sua sponte, without costs, as plaintiff-appellant Aderly Ruiz Cruz is not an aggrieved party with standing to appeal.

An appeal may be taken only by a party “aggrieved” by an order or judgment (CPLR 5511).  Plaintiff is not aggrieved by the order because he did not move for any relief that was denied by the motion court and he successfully opposed the Tully defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing his claims (see Rojas v. Paine, 125 A.D.3d 742, 744, 4 N.Y.S.3d 85 [2d Dept. 2015]).  Instead, plaintiff takes issue with Supreme Court's reasoning, which resolved the motion without deciding whether the Tully defendants are entitled to the protection of the reckless disregard standard of care set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b).  However, that the order appealed from “may contain language or reasoning” that plaintiff deems adverse to his interests does not furnish him with a basis for standing to take an appeal (Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v. Austin Powder Co., 68 N.Y.2d 465, 472–473, 510 N.Y.S.2d 67, 502 N.E.2d 982 [1986];  see Edge Mgt. Consulting, Inc. v. Irmas, 306 A.D.2d 69, 69, 761 N.Y.S.2d 172 [1st Dept. 2003];  Moore v. City of New York, 220 A.D.3d 767, 768, 198 N.Y.S.3d 120 [2d Dept. 2023]).