| Zoref v Glassman |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08217 [44 AD3d 1036] |
| October 30, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Hal Zoref et al., Respondents, v Andrea Glassman,Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Joseph C. Savino of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Andrea Glassman appeals from an orderof the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), dated November 18, 2005, which, in effect,held the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the complaint and the cross motion of thedefendants Andrea Glassman and Ruth Selby, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint in abeyance and directed a judicial hearing to aid in the disposition of the motion andcross motion.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
An order directing a hearing to aid in the determination of a motion and cross motion doesnot dispose of the motion or cross motion and does not affect a substantial right, and therefore isnot appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; see also Kornblum vKornblum, 34 AD3d 749, 751 [2006]; D'Agnese v Spinelli, 308 AD2d 561, 562[2003]; Rosen v Swarzman, 296 AD2d 392, 393 [2002]). Any party aggrieved by anorder entered subsequent to the hearing may take an appeal (see Davidson-Sakuma vSakuma, 280 AD2d 577, 577-578 [2001]). Since leave to appeal has not been granted, wedismiss the appeal.
The Supreme Court's finding that the mortgage servicing agent received funding for the totalamount of the loan prior to the mortgage closing is a finding of fact which is not independentlyappealable (see Clark v Weiner, 254 AD2d 322 [1998]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.