Commerce Bank, N.A. v Globe Inst. of Tech., Inc.

Annotate this Case
Commerce Bank, N.A. v Globe Inst. of Tech., Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 00264 Decided on January 17, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 17, 2013
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter, Clark, JJ.
9019 603917/08 590034/08

[*1]Commerce Bank, N.A., Plaintiff,

v

Globe Institute of Technology, Inc., et al., Defendants. Globe Institute of Technology, Inc., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants 878 Education, LLC, et al., Third-Party Defendants. 172 Van Duzer Realty Corp., Nonparty-Respondent.




Herzfeld & Rubin P.C., New York (David B. Hamm of
counsel), for appellants.
Cox Padmore Skolnik & Shakarchy LLP, New York (Noah
Potter of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvyn L. Schweitzer, J.), entered September 8, 2011, which granted the application of nonparty 172 Van Duzer Realty Corp. (Van Duzer) to direct that any award received by third-party plaintiffs be distributed to Van Duzer, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the application denied.

The order appealed from is the result of an ex parte application and thus, is not appealable as of right (see Unanue v Rennert, 39 AD3d 289 [1st Dept 2007]; CPLR 5701[a][2]). However, under the circumstances presented, we deem the notice of appeal to be a motion for leave to appeal, and grant said leave (see e.g Ning-Yen Yao v Yao, 88 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2011]).

The court's determination to have Van Duzer submit a proposed order directing the distribution to it of any award in this action was incorrect, as was the court's decision to sign the [*2]proposed order. The proper procedure for Van Duzer to enforce its rights as a judgment creditor against the cause of action brought by third-party plaintiff Globe Institute of Technology, its judgment debtor, is set forth in CPLR 5227.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 17, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.