| Matter of Sedita v Sacha |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06725 [99 AD3d 1259] |
| October 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Frank A. Sedita, III, et al., Appellants, v Mark A.Sacha, Respondent. |
—[*1] Chamberlain D'Amanda Oppenheimer & Greenfield, LLP, Rochester (Matthew J. Fusco ofcounsel), for respondent-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), enteredSeptember 6, 2011. The order "denied" the petition.
It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Although petitioners appeal from an order that purportedly "denied" theirpetition, they concede in their brief that Supreme Court "effectively granted the relief requestedin the Verified Petition" and seek only to have certain language stricken from the order. Where,as here, the appealing parties have by their own concession "obtained the full relief sought, [theyhave] no grounds for appeal . . . This is so even where [they] disagree[ ] with theparticular findings, rationale or the opinion supporting the order . . . , or where[they] failed to prevail on all the issues that had been raised" (Parochial Bus Sys. v Board ofEduc. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 545 [1983]). "Merely because the order appealed fromcontains language or reasoning that a party deems adverse to its interests does not furnish a basisfor standing to take an appeal" (Cholowsky v Civiletti, 69 AD3d 110, 116 [2009] [internalquotation marks omitted]). We therefore agree with respondent that this appeal must bedismissed (see CPLR 5511).
We note that we have not addressed petitioners' remaining contentions inasmuch as thosecontentions are raised for the first time in their reply brief and thus are not properly before thisCourt (see generally Matter of State of New York v Zimmer [appeal No. 4], 63 AD3d1563, 1564 [2009]; Turner vCanale, 15 AD3d 960, 961 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 702 [2005]).Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey and Lindley, JJ.