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.
Jean Claude Saint Victor, respondent, v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, appellant.
Argued-February 19, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered May 22, 2009, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint and granted the plaintiff's cross motion, in effect, to designate the MTA Bus Company as a party defendant in place of the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority and to deem the summons and complaint served on the MTA Bus Company.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted the plaintiff's cross motion, in effect, to designate the MTA Bus Company as a party defendant in place of the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority and to deem the summons and complaint served on the MTA Bus Company is dismissed, as the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority is not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the motion of the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority to dismiss the complaint is dismissed as academic; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
To the extent that the order appealed from granted the plaintiff's cross motion, in effect, to designate the MTA Bus Company as a party defendant in place of the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter the appellant) and to deem the summons and complaint served on the MTA Bus Company, the appellant is not aggrieved thereby. Further, since the appellant is no longer a defendant in this case as a result of the Supreme Court's granting of the plaintiff's cross motion, the appeal from so much of the order as denied the appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint must be dismissed as academic.
DILLON, J.P., SANTUCCI, BALKIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2009-06486 (Index No. 7059 /08)
Decided: May 11, 2010
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)