extent of directing hearing in New York

2015Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as directed a hearing on the issue of reasonable attorney’s fees is dismissed, as that portion of the order is not appealable as of *927 right, and leave to appeal has not been granted (see Ross v Ross, 63 AD3d 714 [2009]; Palma v Palma, 101 AD2d 812 [1984]); and it is further, Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further, Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

1989Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 30, 1988, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as an order directing a judicial hearing to aid in the disposition of a motion is not appealable as of right (see, Palma v Palma, 101 AD2d 812 ; Perez v Perez, 100 AD2d 962 ); and it is further, Ordered that the order dated September 30, 1987, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further, Ordered that the order dated March 11, 1988, is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which wa

2020Green Const. Corp. , 100 AD2d 509 ); and it is further, ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the nonparty-appellant's notice of appeal from the order granting those branches of the motion of the defendants Avi Cohen and Simone Cohen which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the amended judgment of foreclosure and sale dated October 5, 2017, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction to the extent of directing a hearing is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal

2000Corp., 100 AD2d 509 ); and it is further, Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the plaintiffs motion is granted to the extent of directing a hearing on her application, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith; and it is further, Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

2020Although an award of reasonable counsel fees is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see Matter of Grald v Grald , 33 AD3d 922, 923 ; see also Matter of Westergaard v Westergaard , 106 AD3d 926, 926 ), under the circumstances presented here, the father had no opportunity at the proceeding to challenge the appropriateness of the award or the amount sought by the mother ( see Santora v Nicolini , 237 AD2d at 506 ).

2019ORDERED that the order dated March 20, 2017, is reversed, on the law, and the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add MTA Bus Company as a defendant is denied; and it is further, ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated October 20, 2017, is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order directing a hearing to aid in the determination of a motion ( see CPLR 5701[a][2]; Shatara v Ephraim , 137 AD3d 1244, 1246 ; Zoref v Glassman , 44 AD3d 1036 ; Rosen v Swarzman , 296 AD2d 392, 393 ), and we decline to grant leave to appeal, as the appeal from the order dated Octobe

2019ORDERED that the order dated March 20, 2017, is reversed, on the law, and the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add MTA Bus Company as a defendant is denied; and it is further, ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated October 20, 2017, is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order directing a hearing to aid in the determination of a motion ( see CPLR 5701[a][2]; Shatara v Ephraim , 137 AD3d 1244, 1246 ; Zoref v Glassman , 44 AD3d 1036 ; Rosen v Swarzman , 296 AD2d 392, 393 ), and we decline to grant leave to appeal, as the appeal from the order dated Octobe

2015Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as directed a hearing on the issue of reasonable attorney’s fees is dismissed, as that portion of the order is not appealable as of *927 right, and leave to appeal has not been granted (see Ross v Ross, 63 AD3d 714 [2009]; Palma v Palma, 101 AD2d 812 [1984]); and it is further, Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further, Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

2011Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion which was to appoint a guardian ad litem on the plaintiffs behalf only to the extent of directing a hearing on that issue is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order directing a hearing to aid in the determination of a motion, and we decline to grant leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Zoref v Glassman, 44 AD3d 1036 [2007]); and it is further, Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, directed the plaintiff to undergo a psychological evaluation is dismissed, as no ap

2011Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion which was to appoint a guardian ad litem on the plaintiffs behalf only to the extent of directing a hearing on that issue is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order directing a hearing to aid in the determination of a motion, and we decline to grant leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Zoref v Glassman, 44 AD3d 1036 [2007]); and it is further, Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, directed the plaintiff to undergo a psychological evaluation is dismissed, as no ap

2011In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated March 11, 2010, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Laurence Peter Mark which was to appoint a guardian ad litem on the plaintiffs behalf only to the extent of directing a hearing on that issue, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Laurence Peter Mark and joint application of the remaining defendants which was to compel the plaintiff to provide authorizations pursuant to Arons v J

2011Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the decision of the Court of Appeals in Arons v Jutkowitz ( 9 NY3d 393 [2007]) does not prohibit defense counsel from conducting an ex parte interview with a nonparty physician before a note of issue has been filed.

2010Co. v Escobar, 61 AD3d 869 [2009]; Matter of Standard Fire Ins.

2010(CPL 710.60 [4]; People v Youngblood, 210 AD2d 948 [4th Dept 1994].) Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, or in the alternative for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing, is granted, to the extent of directing a hearing.

2009Accordingly, I would reverse the order denying the CPL 440.10 motion and grant the motion to the extent of directing a hearing to determine whether there exists or existed undisclosed Rosario material pertinent to Mr. Ramirez’s trial testimony and, if so, whether the nature of any such material raises a reasonable possibility that its nondisclosure materially affected the trial’s outcome (see CPL 240.75; and see People v Baxley, 84 NY2d 208 [1994]).

2009Accordingly, I would reverse the order denying the CPL 440.10 motion and grant the motion to the extent of directing a hearing to determine whether there exists or existed undisclosed Rosario material pertinent to Mr. Ramirez's trial testimony and, if so, whether the nature of any such material raises a reasonable possibility that its nondisclosure materially affected the trial's outcome ( see CPL 240.75; and see People v Baxley, 84 NY2d 208 [1994]).

2008“An order which directs a judicial hearing to aid in the disposition of a motion is not appealable as of right because it does not decide the motion, and does not affect a substantial right” (D’Agnese v Spinelli, 308 AD2d 561, 562 [2003]; see Zoref v Glassman, 44 AD3d 1036 [2007]; Kornblum v Kornblum, 34 AD3d 749 [2006]; Matter of James, 5 AD3d 487 [2004]).

2008“An order which directs a judicial hearing to aid in the disposition of a motion is not appealable as of right because it does not decide the motion, and does not affect a substantial right” (D’Agnese v Spinelli, 308 AD2d 561, 562 [2003]; see Zoref v Glassman, 44 AD3d 1036 [2007]; Kornblum v Kornblum, 34 AD3d 749 [2006]; Matter of James, 5 AD3d 487 [2004]).

2006An order directing a hearing to aid. in the determination of a motion does not dispose of the motion and does not affect a substantial right, and therefore is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; see also Berliner v Berliner, 294 AD2d 524 [2002]; Davidson-Sakuma v Sakuma, 280 AD2d 577 [2001]; Palma v Palma, 101 AD2d 812 [1984]).

2005The Supreme Court correctly stated that the husband may not properly reduce his overall child support obligation by 25% based on the oldest child’s attainment of the age of 21 (see Lee v Lee, 18 AD3d 508 [decided herewith 2005]).

2004Consideration of whether petitioner acted in good-faith reliance on a then-valid DOB permit in constructing a glass-enclosed stairwell at the rear of his building was relevant to determining if petitioner was entitled to a variance to allow the structure notwithstanding the postconstruction revocation of the building permit (see Matter of Jayne Estates, Inc. v Raynor, 22 NY2d 417 [1968]; Ellentuck v Klein, 51 AD2d 964 [1976], appeal dismissed 39 NY2d 743 [1976], lv denied 39 NY2d 707 [1976]).

2004Consideration of whether petitioner acted in good-faith reliance on a then-valid DOB permit in constructing a glass-enclosed stairwell at the rear of his building was relevant to determining if petitioner was entitled to a variance to allow the structure notwithstanding the postconstruction revocation of the building permit (see Matter of Jayne Estates, Inc. v Raynor, 22 NY2d 417 [1968]; Ellentuck v Klein, 51 AD2d 964 [1976], appeal dismissed 39 NY2d 743 [1976], lv denied 39 NY2d 707 [1976]).