Category: Appellate Procedure

Moot?

E-Z Eating 41 Corp. v H.E. Newport L.L.C., 2011 NY Slip Op 03652 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Given that the time to cure the alleged lease default has expired, and that the E-Z Eating 41 Corp. has surrendered possession of the premises, the orders appealed are presently moot (see Matter of Johnson v Pataki, 91 NY2d 214, 222 [1997]; cf. Automated Ticket Sys., Ltd. v Quinn, 90 AD2d 738, 739 [1982] [dismissing claims for declaratory relief relating to contract; "[t]he contract having expired, all of the rights asserted by plaintiff against defendants have accrued, and plaintiff should seek its remedy in an action at law for damages"] [internal quotation marks omitted]). In addition, there is no indication that the appeal should be excepted from the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

While the general rule in New York is to simply dismiss an appeal which has been rendered moot, vacatur of an order or judgment on appeal has, in circumstances such as those presented here, been held to be an appropriate exercise of discretion where necessary " in order to prevent a judgment which is unreviewable for mootness from spawning any legal consequences or precedent'" (see Funderburke v New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv., 49 AD3d 809, 811 [2008], quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d at 718).

There is a long dissent.

The perils of social networking and other discovery issues

In this case, nothing came of it, but it remains dangerous to those who are unaware.  Turk wrote about it too.

CPLR § 3101 Scope of disclosure

Abrams v Pecile. 2011 NY Slip Op 03108 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

In this action for, among other things, conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff alleges that defendant, a former employee of plaintiff's husband, retained, without permission, a copy of a CD containing seminude photographs of plaintiff taken by her husband during their honeymoon. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant refused to return the CD and photographs unless plaintiff's husband paid defendant $2.5 million to settle her sexual harassment claims brought against plaintiff's husband and his brother.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in ordering plaintiff to comply with the outstanding discovery demands. With respect to defendant's demand for access to plaintiff's social networking accounts, no showing has been made that "the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims" (Vyas v Campbell, 4 AD3d 417, 418 [2004][internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see also McCann v Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 78 AD3d 1524, 1525 [2010]). Because plaintiff admits that she has copies of the photographs contained on the subject CD, defendant has also failed to show that she needs access to plaintiff's hard drive in order to defeat plaintiff's conversion claim. Nor has defendant shown that broad discovery concerning plaintiff's finances, education, immigration status, and educational background is "material and necessary" (CPLR 3101[a]).

With respect to defendant's demand for materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, defendant has failed to show "substantial need" for the materials or that she is "unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means" (Santariga v McCann, 161 AD2d 320, 321-322 [1990]; see CPLR 3101[d][2]). Further, defendant is not entitled to privileged communications between plaintiff and her prior counsel (see CPLR 4503[a]).

Discovery of materials concerning plaintiff's family and her husband's business should be obtained through nonparty discovery pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4).

Defendant's remaining discovery demands are either overbroad or irrelevant.

JFK Family Ltd. Partnership v Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 03211 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

No appeal lies as of right from an order denying an application to direct a witness to respond to questions posed during the course of a deposition (see McGuire v Zarlengo, 250 AD2d 823, 824; Mann v Alvarez, 242 AD2d 318, 320). However, this Court may deem the plaintiffs' notice of appeal from such an order to be an application for leave to appeal, and grant leave to appeal (see McGuire v Zarlengo, 250 AD2d at 824; Mann v Alvarez, 242 AD2d at 320), and we do so here. 

CPLR 3101(a) requires, in pertinent part, "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." Generally, CPLR 3101 is to be construed liberally in favor of disclosure, so long as the information sought meets the test of "usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406, 406-407; see Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 AD2d 65, 69-70). However, the principle of "full disclosure" does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531). Moreover, the Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion (Spodek v Neiss, 70 AD3d 810, 810; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694, 695; Cabellero v City of New York, 48 AD3d 727, 728; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d at 531). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court's denial of those branches of the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 which were to compel the defendants to disclose certain documentary evidence and its grant of those branches of the defendants' cross motion which were for a protective and confidentiality order as to certain evidence sought through discovery, were provident exercises of its discretion.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions, including those referable to their application to compel deposition witnesses to respond to certain questions, are without merit.

Taylor v New York City Hous. Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 03229 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"[N]o appeal as of right lies from an order directing a party to answer questions propounded at an examination before trial" (Nappi v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 31 AD3d 509, 510-511 see Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 AD2d 65, 69). An order deciding "a motion to compel a witness to answer questions propounded at an examination before trial is akin to a ruling made in the course of the examination itself and as such is not appealable as of right even where it was made upon a full record and on the defendant's motion to compel responses" (Singh v Villford Realty Corp., 21 AD3d 892, 893 [citations omitted]; see Daniels v Fairfield Presidential Mgt. Corp., 43 AD3d 386, 387; Cedrone v Bon Secours Community Hosp., 31 AD3d 596). The plaintiffs have not sought leave to appeal, and there is nothing in the record that would warrant granting leave to appeal on the Court's own motion (see Daniels v Fairfield Presidential Mgt. Corp., 43 AD3d at 387).

W&W Glass, LLC v 1113 York Ave. Realty Co. LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 02786 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

 

The record fails to support the motion court's determination that defendants' failure to comply with discovery obligations was willful, or in bad faith (see Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 AD3d 219 [2010]; Banner v New York City Hous. Auth., 73 AD3d 502 [2010]. Absent such showing, the motion court erred in imposing the "harshest available penalty" against defendants (see Basset v Bando Sangsa Co., 103 AD2d 728, 728 [1984]).

Finally, we note that the record discloses no evidence of defendants' repeated failures to comply with the court's discovery orders. Indeed, there appear to be no prior motions by plaintiff to compel disclosure, rendering any motion to strike the answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 premature in this case.

The bold is mine.

Notice of appeal limits review

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Cos. v Jaenecke, 2011 NY Slip Op 01219 (App. Div., 4th 2011)

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify Zachary J. Jaenecke and Peter J. Jaenecke (defendants) in the underlying personal injury action commenced by defendants Gary L. Coons and Ann M. Coons. We note at the outset that the challenge by defendants to that part of the order and judgment declaring that "any bodily injury or damage to Gary L. Coons and Ann M. Coons was not caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of the Jaenecke vehicle" is not properly before us. "An appeal from only part of an order [and judgment] constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal from other parts [thereof]" (Johnson v Transportation Group, Inc., 27 AD3d 1135, 1135). Here, defendants limited their notice of appeal to that part of the order and judgment denying their motion during trial seeking a declaration that plaintiff was obligated to defend and indemnify them based on plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with Insurance Law § 3420 (d), and thus our review is limited to that issue (see Matter of Violet Realty, Inc. v City of Buffalo Planning Bd., 20 AD3d 901, 903-904, lv denied 5 NY3d 713). We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied the motion and determined that plaintiff "was not required by Insurance Law § 3420 (d) to issue a disclaimer in a timely fashion because its denial of coverage was based upon a lack of coverage and not a policy exclusion" (Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Goddard, 29 AD3d 698, 699).

“evidentiary rulings which, even when made in advance of trial on motion papers, are not appealable, either as of right or by permission”

CPLR § 5701 Appeals to appellate division from supreme and county courts

Rosenfeld v Baker, 2010 NY Slip Op 08087 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

The appeal from the order dated September 8, 2008, must be dismissed because the portions of the order appealed from concern evidentiary rulings which, even when made in advance of trial on motion papers, are not appealable, either as of right or by permission (seeCPLR 5701; Barnes v Paulin, 52 AD3d 754; Citlak v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 37 AD3d 640; Cotgreave v Public Adm'r of Imperial County [Cal], 91 AD2d 600, 601). The issues raised on the appeal from the order dated September 8, 2008, are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]). The appeal from the order dated January 12, 2009, must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendants' medical experts were properly permitted to testify at trial, inter alia, based upon their review of the plaintiff's medical records (see Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139). The fact that the defendants' psychiatric expert did not examine the plaintiff goes only to the weight of his testimony, not to its admissibility (see Weigert v Baker, 217 AD2d 1011).

 

The NYLJ has something special for you.

My week started off with the littlest child breaking my glasses into two.  As you can see, I fixed it with a mix of crazy glue and sewing thread.  Now when I wear them I look like Sloth and it makes my vision all crazy like.  And today, while I was walking home I walked past an electronics store with a Pickachu statute on the outside and I swear, it looked like it was flipping me the bird.  I blame that on my lack of sleep.  What I can't explain is that for second, I was genuinely pissed at Pickachu.1
Photo

And onto the law.  Yesterday's Law Journal had one of those special fancy pants pull out sections: Court of Appeals and Appellate Practice.  One of the sections, indeed, the most important section is, Civil Practice: Substantive Impact of the CPLR.  Sure, there are other sections, but you didn't come here for them.  You can here to see if I would actually fight a statue of a cartoon character and read about the CPLR.

The section covers, among other things CPLR CPLR § 205(a), CPLR § 5511, CPLR § 5304, CPLR § 901(a).

The discussion of CPLR 205(a) revolved around Matter of Goldstein v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 13 NY3d 511 (Ct. App., 2009), a case I posted way back when.  Next is CPLR 5511.  The author, Thomas F. Gleason, starts with Batavia Turf Farms v. County of Genesee, 91 NY 2d 906 (Ct. App. 1998), a remarkably terse decision.  From there he moves to Adams v Genie Indus., Inc., 14 NY3d 535 (Ct. App. 2010), a case I didn't post.  Adams, Mr. Gleason writes, rejected the "more restrictive premise of Batavia, viz., "a stipulation on one issue (such as damages) would foreclose an appeal on other unrelated issues, because a party who had consented to an order could not claim to be aggrieved by any part of it within the meaning of CPLR 5511."2

 In his discussion of class actions, namely CPLR 901(a), he refers to City of New York v Maul, 14 NY3d 499 (Ct. App. 2010), another case I managed to miss.

There's more. But you have to go read it for yourself.

Norman A. Olch, blogger and appellate guru, provides a several book reviews, including Making Your Case, by Scalia and Garner.  Everyone should read it.  You shouldnt need him to tell you to, but, if it that's what it takes, then fine.

Harry Steinberg has a must read section on how not to completely screw up your appeal.  Part of it involves preserving the issues for appeal.  A decision came out today on just that issue: Arrieta v Shams Waterproofing, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 06508 (App. Div., 1st 2010). 

I might add some more later.

 

——————

1.  I'm recycling facebook updates today.

2.  For more cases discussing what it means to be "aggrieved" click HERE.  I think all of them are from the Appellate Division, Second Department.  Mixon v TBV, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 05521 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010) is the most recent and probably the most useful.

Oral Decision, Not Reduced to Writing, Does Not Get Res Judicata Effect (last case)

Res Judicata
Collateral Estoppel
Law of the Case

Specialized Indus. Servs. Corp. v Carter, 2009 NY Slip Op 09018 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In the underlying action, judgment was entered against the plaintiff upon its default in answering or appearing. The plaintiff obtained an order vacating the default judgment, which was ultimately reversed by this Court (see Dave Sandel, Inc. v Specialized Indus. Servs. Corp., 35 AD3d 790). Generally, a party who has lost a case as a result of alleged fraud or false testimony cannot collaterally attack the judgment in a separate action for damages against the party who adduced the false evidence, and the plaintiff's remedy lies exclusively in moving to vacate the default judgment (see North Shore Envtl. Solutions, Inc. v Glass, 17 AD3d 427; Retina Assoc. of Long Is. v Rosberger, 299 AD2d 533; New York City Tr. Auth. v Morris J. Eisen, P.C., 276 AD2d 78, 87; Yalkowsky v Century Apts. Assoc., 215 AD2d 214, 215). Under an exception to that rule, a separate lawsuit may be brought where the [*2]alleged perjury or fraud in the underlying action was "merely a means to the accomplishment of a larger fraudulent scheme" (Newin Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217) which was "greater in scope than the issues determined in the prior proceeding" (Retina Assoc. of Long Is. v Rosberger, 299 AD2d at 533 [internal quotation marks omitted]). The plaintiff here, in its amended verified complaint and supplemental affidavits, has sufficiently alleged a larger fraudulent scheme to fit within the exception to the rule against collateral attack (see New York City Tr. Auth. v Morris J. Eisen, P.C., 276 AD2d at 80, 87-88; cf. North Shore Envtl. Solutions, Inc. v Glass, 17 AD3d at 428).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the first cause of action in the amended verified complaint is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata since the Judiciary Law cause of action did not arise out of the factual transaction which was the subject matter of that action (see Matter of Hodes v Axelrod, 70 NY2d 364, 372; Mahler v Campagna, 60 AD3d at 1011; Lazides v P & G Enters., 58 AD3d 607, 609; Triboro Fastener & Chem. Prods. Corp. v Lee, 236 AD2d 603, 603-604). Nor is the first cause of action precluded by principles of collateral estoppel in that the claim was not litigated in the underlying action and much of the evidence upon which the plaintiff relies was discovered subsequent to entry of the default judgment in the underlying action (see Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 456-457; Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v Flaum, 25 AD3d at 537; Chambers v City of New York, 309 AD2d 81, 85).

Man Choi Chiu v Chiu, 2009 NY Slip Op 08792, (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

On a prior appeal in this action, this Court affirmed, inter alia, the Supreme Court's determination to award an attorney's fee to the plaintiffs (see Man Choi Chiu v Chiu, 38 AD3d 619). Thus, the doctrine of the law of the case (see People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 502) precludes consideration of whether the plaintiffs were properly awarded an attorney's fee (see Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 43 AD3d 314, affd 10 NY3d 846; Toyos v City of New York, 54 AD3d 628; Combier v Anderson, 34 AD3d 333).

As a general rule, we do not consider any issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal that was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although we have the inherent jurisdiction to do so (see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750; Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350). Here, the defendants appealed from an order of the Supreme Court dated September 7, 2007, which, inter alia, denied their motion to cancel the hearing on the issue of the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded. That appeal was dismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 18, 2008, for failure to prosecute. We decline to exercise our discretion to determine the merits of that appeal on the instant appeal from the judgment, as amended (see Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d [*2]350; Blue Chip Mtge. Corp. v Strumpf, 50 AD3d 936, 937).

Jespersen v Li Sheng Liang, 2009 NY Slip Op 09000 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

As a general rule, a dismissal "with prejudice" signifies that the court intended dismiss the action "on the merits" (Yonkers Contr. v Port Auth. Trans Hudson Corp., 93 NY2d 375, 380). However, an oral decision which has never been reduced to a written order or judgment is not entitled to res judicata effect and thus is ineffective as a bar to subsequent proceedings (see Towne v Asadourian, 277 AD2d 800; Begelman v Begelman, 170 AD2d 562; see also 73 NY Jur 2d, Judgments §§ 354, 436, 437). Moreover, it is clear from the hearing transcript, as well as from the order appealed from, that the Supreme Court did not intend its dismissal of the first action to be on the merits. In addition, while a "duplicate" action is subject to dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), there was no procedural bar to the plaintiff commencing the second action before the first action had been dismissed.

The bold is mine.

Post Appeal Motion to Renew: CPLR R. 2221(e)

CPLR R. 2221(e) Motion for Leave to Renew

Estate of Anna K. Essig v 5670 58 St. Holding Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 07581 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

On prior appeals, this Court, inter alia, affirmed an order granting that branch of the plaintiffs' prior motion which was for summary judgment on their cause of action for a judgment declaring that they are the owners of 225 shares of the capital stock of the defendant 5670 58 Street Holding Corp. and affirmed an order denying the respondents' prior motion for leave to renew their opposition to that branch of the plaintiffs' prior motion (see Estate of Essig v 5670 58 St. Holding Corp., 50 AD3d 948). Thereafter, the respondents moved again for leave to renew based upon documents discovered four months earlier. The Supreme Court granted the motion and, upon renewal, vacated the judgment entered August 7, 2008, and denied that branch of the plaintiffs' prior motion which was for summary judgment on their declaratory judgment cause of action. We reverse.

Pursuant to CPLR 2221(e), a motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination . . . and shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221[e][2],[3]). Moreover, while "a court of original jurisdiction may entertain a motion to renew or to vacate a prior order or judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence even after an appellate court has affirmed the original order or judgment . . . on [a] postappeal motion [to renew] the [movant] bears a heavy burden of showing due diligence in presenting the new evidence to the [*2]Supreme Court in order to imbue the appellate decision with a degree of certainty" (Levitt v County of Suffolk, 166 AD2d 421, 422-423 [citations omitted][emphasis added]). Here, the respondents failed to offer a reasonable explanation for their failure to present the "new facts" in conjunction either with their opposition to that branch of the plaintiffs' prior motion which was for summary judgment on their declaratory judgment cause of action or with their first motion for leave to renew (see Elder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473). Accordingly, the respondents' motion for leave to renew should have been denied.

The bold is mine.

CPLR R. 5526 Record insufficient — Appeal dismissed

CPLR R. 5526 Content and form of record on appeal

Keita v United Parcel Serv., 2009 NY Slip Op 06165 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In two decisions and orders on motion, dated December 24, 2008, and
March 12, 2009, respectively, this Court directed the plaintiffs to
serve and file a supplemental record containing, inter alia, the
answers to the complaint and "the notice of motion and affidavits
annexed thereto, answering affidavits, if any, and reply affidavits, if
any, submitted in connection with the motion that resulted in the order
being appealed." The plaintiffs have failed to do so.

It is the appellants' obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal (see Salem v Mott, 43 AD3d 397; Cohen v Wallace & Minchenberg, 39 AD3d 689, 689). In this regard, "[t]he record must contain all of the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court" (Cohen v Wallace & Minchenberg, 39 AD3d 689; see CPLR 5526; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas, 288
AD2d 309, 310). Where, as here, meaningful appellate review of the
Supreme Court's determination is made "virtually impossible" because of
the incomplete nature of the record submitted, dismissal of the appeal
is the appropriate disposition (Salem v Mott, 43 AD3d 397, 397).

The bold is mine,

Appellate Procedure: I don’t know why, but I kind of like this decision

CPLR § 5701 Appeals to appellate division from supreme and county courts
(a) Appeals as of right
(2) from an order not specified in subdivision (b), where the motion it decided was made upon notice…

Reyes v Sequeira, 2009 NY Slip Op 05986 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Supreme Court requested appraisals for both parcels from Skyline Appraisals Inc. and [*3]East
Coast Appraisals, and the appraisals were performed. While neither
party objected to the appraisals performed by Skyline, defendant sent a
letter to Supreme Court objecting to the appraisal performed by East
Coast. Defendant was concerned that the East Coast appraisal was
inaccurate and greatly undervalued the parcels. Defendant requested a
conference between the parties and the court to "resolve" issues
relating to the East Coast appraisal; no motion was made by either
party for any relief.

…

Without the prompting of a motion, Supreme Court determined the value of the parcels.

…

The court did not discuss the terms of the stipulation of settlement
that required the court to determine the value of the properties by
averaging two appraisals, and did not explain how its decision
to average the three appraisals was consonant with the terms of
stipulation of settlement. Nor did the court explain why it believed
that one of the valuation methods was to discard the lowest and highest
appraisals, a method that would entail no averaging. This appeal by
defendant ensued.

Prior to oral argument on this appeal, defendant moved to vacate the
stipulations of settlement — both defendant and the court that heard
and decided that motion treated the court's August 7, 2007
on-the-record statements as a stipulation; plaintiff, however, asserts
that the court gave directives to which the parties did not stipulate.
After oral argument of the appeal, Supreme Court granted the motion to
vacate. The court concluded that no binding stipulations existed, and
stated that the parties were free to conduct disclosure and file a note
of issue when the matter was ready for trial. Thus, although the order
appears not to have expressly vacated the order on appeal determining
the value of the properties, it implicitly does so (see generally Banker v Banker, 56 AD3d 1105, 1107 [2008]; Savino v "ABC Corp.," 44 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2007]; Matter of Jefferson County Dept. of Social Servs. v Mark L.O., 12 AD3d 1037, 1037-1038 [2004], lv denied
4 NY3d 794 [2005]). Moreover, of course, the order on appeal depends
entirely on the existence and validity of the stipulations.

Regardless of whether Supreme Court correctly vacated the stipulations that are the [*5]subject
of this appeal, the stipulations have been vacated and this appeal is
moot because the rights of the parties cannot be affected by a
determination of this appeal (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; see Matter of Feustel v Rosenblum,
6 NY3d 885 [2006] ["Appeal taken as of right from the Appellate
Division judgment . . . and motion for leave to appeal from said
judgment . . . dismissed as moot upon the ground that the judgment of
the Appellate Division has been vacated by a subsequent order of that
Court"]; Matter of Rodriguez v Johnson, 45 AD3d 279 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008] ["Petitioner's appeal is moot because Supreme Court vacated the judgment on appeal"]; Fidata Trust Co. Mass. v Leahy Bus. Archives, 187 AD2d 270, 271 [1992] ["The order on appeal was subsequently vacated and thus rendered moot"]; see also Perez v Morse Diesel Intl., 10 AD3d 497
[2004]; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book
7B, CPLR C5517:1, at 208 [1995] ["If the disposition of [a] motion [to
reargue, renew or vacate an order] does substantially affect the
original order . . . it may have some impact on the appeal. If it
alters the order in such a way as to remove the grievance that accounts
for the appeal, it should abate the appeal"]). Because the appeal has
been rendered moot we cannot and do not pass on the issues presented (see Hearst Corp.,
50 NY2d at 713-714 ["It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence
that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is
limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually
controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal. This
principle, which forbids courts to pass on academic,
hypothetical, moot, or otherwise abstract questions, is founded
both in constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine, and in
methodological strictures which inhere in the decisional process of a
common-law judiciary"]).

The dissent asserts that "by ruling that the intervening order
implicitly' vacates the order on appeal, [we] thereby pass[] on a
substantive issue" and "render[] an advisory opinion construing both
the status of the order appealed from and [the] effect of an order not
even before us." As is obvious from our decision, we pass on no
substantive issues relating to the rights of the parties. Equally as
obvious, we are not "rendering an advisory opinion construing both the
status of the order appealed from and [the] effect of an order not even
before us." Rather, we simply conclude that the order on appeal is moot
(and, as discussed below, nonappealable) and therefore the appeal must
be dismissed. Of course, we first conclude that the order vacating the
stipulations implicitly vacates the order on appeal. But that
conclusion merely reflects the exercise of our jurisdiction to
determine our jurisdiction (see United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 291 [1947]).

The dissent states that by moving to vacate the stipulations, defendants "unilaterally prevent[ed] this Court
from deciding whether the motion court erred in vacating what
appears to be a valid agreement between the parties." In the first
place, however, defendants took no "unilateral" action. Defendants made
a motion on notice to vacate the stipulations, a motion Supreme Court
granted. Second, this Court is not precluded from determining whether
the stipulations are valid. To the contrary, we may determine that
precise issue should plaintiff perfect his appeal from the order
vacating the stipulations.

…

The appeal should be dismissed for another reason — it is from a sua sponte order from which no appeal lies (see Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333 [2003]; Person v Einhorn, 44 AD3d 363 [2007]; Unanue v Rennert, 39 AD3d 289 [2007]; Diaz v New York Mercantile Exch., 1 AD3d 242 [2003]). In Sholes
the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of the appealability of sua
sponte orders. There, an attorney was sanctioned by Supreme Court for
engaging in frivolous conduct in the course of a personal injury case.
From the bench the trial court gave the parties a briefing schedule,
requiring the attorney to submit an affidavit explaining why she should
not be sanctioned for her conduct and directing her adversary to submit
an affidavit detailing his costs and expenditures at trial. After both
sides submitted papers, the trial court ordered the attorney to pay her
adversary approximately $14,000. The attorney appealed to the Second
Department, which dismissed the appeal because the order imposing
sanctions did not decide a motion made on notice (295 AD2d 593 [2002]).

The Court of Appeals granted leave and concluded that the
Second Department had correctly dismissed the appeal. The Court of
Appeals stated that, "[w]ith limited exceptions, an appeal may be taken
to the Appellate Division as of right from an order deciding a motion
made upon notice when — among other possibilities — the order affects a
substantial right. There is, however, no right of appeal from an ex
parte order, including an order entered sua sponte" (100 NY2d at 335
[internal citations omitted]). The Court also stated "[t]hat an order
made sua sponte is not an order deciding a motion on notice is apparent
from various CPLR provisions, including the definition of motion (see
CPLR 2211) and the provision for dismissal for failure to prosecute,
which distinguishes between a court initiative' and a party's motion' (see CPLR 3216)" (id.
at 335 n 2). While the trial court had created a procedure to ensure
that the parties had an opportunity to be heard before the court acted,
the Court stressed that
"the submissions ordered sua sponte by the trial court were not
made pursuant to a motion on notice as contemplated by CPLR 5701(a)(2).
While the procedure in this particular case may well have produced a
record sufficient for appellate review, there is no guarantee that the
same would be true in the next case. Moreover, the amount of notice
will vary from case to case, and its sufficiency may often be open to
debate. Adherence to the procedure specified by CPLR 5701(a) uniformly
provides for certainty, while at the same time affording the parties a
right of [*7]review by the Appellate Division. We are therefore unwilling to overwrite that statute" (id. at 336).

As is evident from the briefs, the record and the attorneys'
statements at oral argument, the order determining the value of the
parcels was not the product of a motion made on notice. Rather, that
order was issued sua sponte and therefore is not appealable as of right
(id.; Person, supra; Unanue, supra; Diaz, supra).

The bold is mine.

Maybe it's the dissent.  Maybe it's the procedural wonk in me.  Maybe I'm just weird.  But I like this decision.