Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hollister Fleming, Defendant-Respondent, (2026)

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Allison R. Greenfield, J.), entered on or about December 8, 2025, dismissed, without costs, as plaintiff-appellant was not aggrieved by the order. Appeal from judgment (Allison R. Greenfield, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2025, dismissed, without costs, as academic, since the judgment was superseded by the December 8, 2025 order.

An appeal may be taken only by a party "aggrieved" by an order or judgment (CPLR 5511). Plaintiff is not aggrieved by so much of the December 8, 2025 order that ordered a new trial and vacated a prior order, which sua sponte, dismissed the complaint on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiff argued successfully before the motion court that it was error to dismiss the case, sua sponte, and that any statute of limitations defense was waived by defendant, since the defense was not raised in a responsive pleading or a preanswer motion to dismiss (see CPLR 3018 [b]; Housing Trust Fund Corp. v Nugent-Nobles, 235 AD3d 854, 855 [2025]).

On this appeal, plaintiff only challenges dicta in the court's order concerning which statute of limitations it deems applicable to this type of action in general. However, given that the defense was waived, the court's comment as to the applicable statute of limitations was "not necessary to resolve the motion and, as such, is dicta and disagreement with dicta does not provide a basis to take an appeal" (Matter of Kosmo Family Trust (Wieland—Savino), 176 AD3d 1465, 1467 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). That an order "may contain language or reasoning" that a party deems adverse to its interests does not furnish it with a basis for standing to take an appeal (see Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co., 68 NY2d 465, 472-473 [1986]; Cruz v Angamarca, 235 AD3d 485, 486 [2025]). Thus, we do not address the merits of plaintiff's contention.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: September 22, 2026