| Swazey v Pathmark Stores, Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04772 [74 AD3d 786] |
| June 1, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Averil Swazey et al., Plaintiffs, v Pathmark Stores, Inc.,Defendant, and National Building Facility Services, Inc., Defendant/Third-PartyPlaintiff-Appellant, and ECUA Cleaning Service Corp., Defendant/Third-Party Defendant.Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Nonparty Respondent. |
—[*1] Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury, N.Y. (Lorin A. Donnelly of counsel),nonparty respondent pro se.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiffappeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated January 13,2009, which granted the motion of nonparty Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, for leaveto withdraw as counsel for the defendant/third-party defendant ECUA Cleaning Service Corp.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
In this personal injury action arising out of a slip and fall, the defendant/third-party plaintiff,National Building Facility Services, Inc. (hereinafter the appellant), commenced a third-partyaction against the defendant/third-party defendant, ECUA Cleaning Service Corp. (hereinafterECUA). At the time of the accident, ECUA was insured by Western Heritage InsuranceCompany (hereinafter Western). Western retained the law firm of Milber Makris Plousadis &Seiden, LLP (hereinafter the firm), to represent ECUA. Thereafter, the firm moved for leave towithdraw as counsel for ECUA, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.
Only "[a]n aggrieved party or a person substituted for him [or her] may appeal from anyappealable . . . order" (CPLR 5511). "A party is aggrieved by an order when itdirectly affects that party's individual rights" (Berrechid v Shahin, 60 AD3d 884 [2009]; see DKFT Pizza, Inc. v Riviera Plaza,LLC, 71 AD3d 816 [2010]). Since the Supreme Court's order, which granted the firm'smotion for leave to withdraw as counsel for ECUA, did not affect the appellant's rights, theappellant is not aggrieved by the order, and the appeal must be dismissed (see generallyMatter of Commercial Bank of Informatics & Computing Technique Dev. Bank Informtechnikav Ostashko, 274 AD2d 516 [2000]; Law v Benedict, 197 AD2d 808 [1993]; seealso Won's Cards v Samsondale/Haverstraw Equities, 165 AD2d 157, 162 [1991]). Rivera,J.P., Dillon, Miller and Roman, JJ., concur.