Griffin v Marshall

Annotate this Case
Griffin v Marshall 2011 NY Slip Op 00353 Decided on January 18, 2011 Appellate Division, Second 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 18, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2009-11771
(Index No. 11178/06)

[*1]Willie Griffin, appellant,

v

Cynthia Marshall, respondent.




Gaylor & Warmund, LLP, Lynbrook, N.Y. (C. William Gaylor III
and Matthew Jay Warmund of counsel), for appellant.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action, in effect, to vacate certain orders of the Family Court, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated November 6, 2009, as, sua sponte, vacated a prior order of the same court dated June 9, 2006, and remitted all pending matters to the Family Court, Kings County, for determination.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from did not determine the plaintiff's motion to clarify a prior order of the same court dated June 9, 2006, but, instead, sua sponte vacated that prior order and remitted all proceedings for determination to the Family Court. Accordingly, the sua sponte order is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701[a][2]; Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335; Evan S. v Joseph R., 70 AD3d 668; Lambert v Schreiber, 69 AD3d 906; Davidson v Regan Fund Mgt. Ltd., 15 AD3d 172; Northside Studios v Treccagnoli, 262 AD2d 469; Housberg v Curtin, 209 AD2d 670, 671), and we decline to grant leave to appeal.
SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

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.