ROBERTO ANGELICOLA AND LYNN ANGELICOLA PLAINTIFFS APPELLANTS v. PATRICK HEATING OF MOHAWK VALLEY INC AND DAVID PATRICK DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS (2010)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

ROBERTO ANGELICOLA AND LYNN ANGELICOLA, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. PATRICK HEATING OF MOHAWK VALLEY, INC. AND DAVID W. PATRICK, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

CA 09-01405

Decided: October 01, 2010

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, PINE, AND GORSKI, JJ.

PETRONE & PETRONE, P.C., SYRACUSE (J. WILLIAM SAVAGE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. COHEN & COHEN LLP, UTICA (RICHARD A. COHEN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order that granted defendants' cross motion in limine seeking to preclude the admission of certain evidence. The appeal must be dismissed on the ground that an evidentiary ruling, “even when made ‘in advance of trial on motion papers constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission’ “ (Winograd v. Price, 21 AD3d 956). Contrary to the contention of plaintiffs, the order on appeal does not limit the scope of the issues to be tried and thus is not appealable on that ground (cf. Innovative Transmission & Engine Co., LLC v Massaro, 63 AD3d 1506, 1508; Rondout Elec. v Dover Union Free School Dist., 304 A.D.2d 808, 810).

Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network