Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rose BEHARRY, plaintiff, v. Ulrich GUZMAN, defendant, North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, et al., appellants; Matthew Jay Warmund, nonparty-respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages, in effect, for employment discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 296, the defendants North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and North Shore University Hospital, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated March 10, 2005, as referred to the trial court those branches of their motion which were to impose a sanction on the plaintiff's attorney, and for an award of costs, including an attorney's fee, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
Alleging that the plaintiff's counsel engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the defendants North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and North Shore University Hospital, Inc. (hereinafter the Hospital), moved, inter alia, to impose a sanction on the plaintiff's counsel, and for an award of costs, including an attorney's fee. In an order dated March 10, 2005, among other things, those branches of the Hospital's motion which were to impose a sanction and for an award of costs were referred to the trial court for disposition. The Hospital appeals from that portion of the order, purportedly as of right.
A party may not appeal as of right from so much of an order that merely defers disposition of a motion until trial (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v]; Kaplan v. Rosiello, 16 A.D.3d 626, 626-627, 792 N.Y.S.2d 523; Weissman v. Weissman, 8 A.D.3d 264, 265, 777 N.Y.S.2d 679; J & A Vending v. J.A.M. Vending, 268 A.D.2d 504, 505, 701 N.Y.S.2d 670). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed, as leave to appeal has not been granted (see Kaplan v. Rosiello, supra; Weissman v. Weissman, supra ).
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: October 17, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)