Ramirez v City of New York

Ramirez v City of New York 2011 NY Slip Op 09610 Decided on December 27, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 27, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
RANDALL T. ENG
SHERI S. ROMAN
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2011-02616
(Index No. 2523/08)

[*1]Antonio Ramirez, appellant,

v

City of New York, defendant, Parade Management Corp., et al., respondents.




Seth Michael Goldstein, Fresh Meadows, N.Y. (Steven J. Mines of
counsel), for appellant.
Harris Beach PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Steven J. Rice and Abby
Volin of counsel), for respondents.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered February 14, 2011, as, upon denying the motion of the defendants Parade Management Corp. and Autozone, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, concluded that "Administrative Code 7-210 is not applicable" to the facts of this case.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The portion of the order from which the plaintiff appeals is not embodied in a decretal paragraph and does not otherwise grant or deny relief. Instead, that portion of the order is a conclusion of law which is not independently appealable (see Higgins v Higgins, 50 AD3d 852, 852; Cosh v Cosh, 45 AD3d 798, 799; Griggs v Griggs, 44 AD3d 710, 711; ELRAC, Inc. v Belessis, 303 AD2d 445, 446; Napolitano v Kaddoch, 275 AD2d 445, 445; Naar v Litwak & Co., 260 AD2d 613, 614; Clark v Weiner, 254 AD2d 322, 322). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.
RIVERA, J.P., ENG, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court