Opinion · Nylaw New York
STANLEY ELECTRICAL SERVICE v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 19 N.Y.2d 629 (1967)
STANLEY Elec. Serv., INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF N.Y. et al.,Defendants, & EDWARD H. BURDICK ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Respondents, andSOUTHERN Equip. Co., E. Div., INC., Appellant., 19 N.Y.2d 629 (Court of Appeals of the State of New York. 1967)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Nylaw New York
- Jurisdiction
- Nylaw
- Date
- 1967-01-01
- Topic
- general
STANLEY ELECTRICAL SERVICE v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 19 N.Y.2d 629 (1967) STANLEY ELECTRICAL SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.,Defendants, and EDWARD H. BURDICK ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Respondents, andSOUTHERN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, EASTERN DIVISION, INC., Appellant.Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Submitted January 9, 1967 Decided January 19, 1967 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, EDWARD THOMPSON, J. Donald F.X.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed STANLEY ELECTRICAL SERVICE v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 19 N.Y.2d 629 (1967). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
STANLEY ELECTRICAL SERVICEv.CITY OF NEW YORK,19 N.Y.2d 629(1967)
STANLEY ELECTRICAL SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff,v.CITY OF NEW YORK et al.,
Defendants, and EDWARD H. BURDICK ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Respondents, and
SOUTHERN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, EASTERN DIVISION, INC., Appellant.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Submitted January 9, 1967
Decided January 19, 1967
Page 630
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, EDWARD THOMPSON, J.
Donald F.X. Finnfor motion.Donald N. Dirksopposed.
Motion dismissed, with $10 costs. An appeal lies as a matter of right from that portion of the order which unanimously affirms the dismissal of appellant's first cross claim, based on its alleged mechanic's lien. By reason of the modification as to the fourth cross claim, an appeal lies as of right from anyPage 631portion of the order by which appellant is aggrieved and which is final for purposes of appeal. Since a part of this order is final, viz., the affirmance of the dismissal of the first cross claim, this part may be appealed as of right. As to the three remaining cross claims, no appeal may be taken since the granting of a stay pending the outcome of other related litigation results in a nonfinal determination within the meaning of the State Constitution and the Civil Practice Law and Rules. (See Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 50, pp. 220-225; § 21;Palmerv.New York Herald Co.,254 N.Y. 563[1930];McKenziev.Irving Trust Co.,291 N.Y. 722[1943];Averyv.Avery,263 N.Y. 667[1934].)