Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Duclaire

2008 NY Slip Op 02830 [49 AD3d 863]

March 25, 2008

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Unitrin Advantage Insurance Company,Respondent, v Marie Livie Duclaire et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants.

—[*1]Melissa Betancourt, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.

Cambio, Votto, Cassata & Gullo, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (Christopher J. Albee of counsel),for respondent.

In an action for a judgment declaring the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to anautomobile liability insurance policy, the defendants Marie Livie Duclaire, Rochell Dennison,Neomy Medical, P.C., Perfect Point Acupuncture, P.C., Donald Cioffi, D.C., and PrimePsychological Services, P.C., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of theSupreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated January 19, 2007, as, upon, in effect, denyingthe plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, directed all parties to appear for depositions.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 5511, only an aggrieved party may appeal from an order or judgment. Tobe "aggrieved," the party must have "a direct interest in the controversy which is affected by theresult," and the adjudication must have "a binding force against the rights, person or property ofthe party" (Matter of Richmond County Socy. for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 11AD2d 236, 239 [1960], affd 9 NY2d 913 [1961], cert denied sub nom. Staten Is.Mental Health Socy., Inc. v Richmond County Socy. for Prevention of Cruelty to Children,368 US 290 [1961]). Since the appellants were not aggrieved within the meaning of CPLR 5511by the order which, insofar as appealed from, effectively denied the plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment and directed that all the parties appear for depositions, the appeal must bedismissed (see DiMare v O'Rourke, 35 AD3d 346 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Ritter andCarni, JJ., concur.