MULLINS v. SHARMA (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (James Hudson, J.), dated January 29, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the cause of action alleging conversion and made certain findings of fact.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the nominal defendant, Nassau–Suffolk Medical Services, P.C., commenced this action asserting, inter alia, a derivative cause of action alleging conversion against the defendant Amit Sharma.  In October 2023, the plaintiff moved for leave to serve a third amended complaint.  In an order dated January 29, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the cause of action alleging conversion against Sharma and made certain findings of fact.  The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the cause of action alleging conversion and made certain findings of fact that he deems adverse to his interests.

No appeal lies as of right from so much of the order as, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the cause of action alleging conversion since that portion of the order did not decide a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701[a][2];  Sholes v. Meagher, 100 N.Y.2d 333, 335, 763 N.Y.S.2d 522, 794 N.E.2d 664;  Duberry v. CNM Analytics, Inc., 180 A.D.3d 648, 651, 118 N.Y.S.3d 651;  Taub v. Schon, 148 A.D.3d 1200, 1202, 51 N.Y.S.3d 127).  Since we decline to grant leave to appeal from that portion of the order (see CPLR 5701[c]), the plaintiff's contentions regarding the dismissal of the cause of action alleging conversion are not properly before this Court.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions also are not properly before this Court.  The mere fact that an order “contains language or reasoning that a party deems adverse to its interests does not furnish a basis for standing to take an appeal” (Lugo v. Torres, 174 A.D.3d 592, 594, 107 N.Y.S.3d 311 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Castaldi v. 39 Winfield Assoc., LLC, 22 A.D.3d 780, 781, 803 N.Y.S.2d 716).  Further, findings of fact and conclusions of law that do not grant or deny relief are not independently appealable (see Glassman v ProHealth Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., Inc., 96 A.D.3d 801, 801, 946 N.Y.S.2d 609).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VOUTSINAS and HOM, JJ., concur.