Back to Basics: A Primer on the Appealability of Interlocutory Orders
Some types of orders are not appealable absent permission; others require additional procedural steps before an appeal can be taken. This article explores those nuances.
February 10, 2023 at 01:10 PM
8 minute read
For any attorney who practices in New York Supreme Court, interlocutory appeals—that is, appeals to the Appellate Division from non-final orders—are a standard fixture. New York's approach to such appeals is so liberal that it is common to assume that just about any order of the Supreme Court will be appealable "as of right" (that is, without the need to seek permission either from that court or from the Appellant Division). But this is only almost true: Some types of orders are not appealable absent permission; others require additional procedural steps before an appeal can be taken. This article explores those nuances.
|Substantive Categories: Broad But Not Limitless
On its face, CPLR 5701 (titled "Appeals to appellate division from supreme and county courts") seems to make virtually any order of the Supreme Court appealable as of right. CPLR 5701(a)(2), which lists the types of orders to which this right attaches, is extremely broad in scope—authorizing appeals as of right from (among other things) orders that "involve[] some part of the merits" (CPLR 5701(a)(2)(iv)) or "affect[] a substantial right" (CPLR 5701(a)(2)(v)).
As the official commentary says of these two provisions, "Between them both they cover most orders." Reilly, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 5701, C5701:4. And so it would appear: It seems almost self-evident that any order a party would want to spend the time and money to appeal must (at a minimum) "affect[] a substantial right." See, e.g., Solomons v. Douglas Elliman, 95 A.D.3d 696 (1st Dept. 2012) (order denying motion to compel certain discovery impacted a party's "ability to pursue a theory of the case" and was therefore appealable as affecting a substantial right); Wall Street Assocs. v. Brodsky, 295 A.D.2d 262, 262-63 (1st Dept. 2002) (ruling that certain testimony was not barred by the Dead Man's Statute affected a substantial right and was therefore appealable as of right; the testimony "may be central to the resolution of the action").
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Attorney in Social Security Case Awarded Fees, But Must Pay Client Refund Under Equal Access to Justice Act
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250