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.
Dune Deck Owners Corp., respondents, v. J.J. & P. Associates Corp., et al., defendants; John P. Liggett, nonparty-appellant.
Argued—June 13, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a lease, the nonparty J.P. Liggett appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated July 28, 2009, which, among other things, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to impose liability upon him for any deficiency and costs and expenses upon a resale of the subject property at public auction.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as awarded relief to the plaintiff and against the defendant Mylene Liggett, is dismissed, as the appellant is not aggrieved by those portions of the order (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to impose liability against the appellant for any deficiency and costs and expenses upon the resale of the subject property is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant.
With the exception of that portion of the fifth decretal paragraph imposing liability upon the appellant for any deficiency and costs and expenses upon a resale of the subject real property at public auction, the appellant is not aggrieved by the order appealed from, since the remaining portions of the order either award relief only against the defendant Mylene Liggett, directly affect only her interests, or fix the obligations of the referee and anticipated bidders. Accordingly, the appeal from those portions of the order must be dismissed (see CPLR 5511).
Since the appellant, a nonparty to this action, was never served with the order to show cause and supporting papers by which the plaintiff sought relief against him, the Supreme Court had no power to award such relief (see Oakley v. Albany Med. Ctr., 39 AD3d 1016, 1017; Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v First Secured Capital Corp., 28 AD3d 457, 460; Blake v. LP 591 Ocean Realty, 237 A.D.2d 554). Accordingly, to the extent that the order awards relief against the appellant, it must be reversed.
In view of the foregoing, we have no occasion to reach the parties' remaining contentions.
MASTRO, J.P., BELEN, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
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: 2009–08500 (Index No. 14938 /03)
Decided: June 28, 2011
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)