Philip R. Bartoo, Appellant, v. Robert O. Buell, Respondent
Dennis E. Pangburn, Appellant, v. Robert O. Buell, Respondent
Allen Skiver, Jr. et al., Appellants, v. Robert O. Buell, Respondent.
(and a third-party action.)
(Appeal Nos. 1 and 2)
84 N.Y.2d 885, 644 N.E.2d 1344, 620 N.Y.S.2d 788 (1994).
October 25, 1994
5601d No. 255 SSM 31 (1994 NY Int. 167) Decided October 25, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Submitted by G. William Gunner, for appellants Bartoo and Pangburn.
Submitted by Joseph C. Dwyer, for appellants Skiver.
Submitted by J. Michael Shane, for respondent.
Submitted by Henry R. Ippolito, for third-party respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The appeals taken by the Bartoo and Pangburn plaintiffs and by the
Skiver plaintiffs, respectively, should each be dismissed upon the
ground that the June 2, 1994 Supreme Court order appealed from
pursuant to CPLR 5601(d) in order to secure review of prior nonfinal
Appellate Division orders, does not itself finally determine the
actions within the meaning of the Constitution.
The June 2, 1994 Supreme Court order, being nonfinal, cannot serve to
bring up for review, pursuant to CPLR 5601(d), prior nonfinal
Appellate Division orders (see, e.g., Bartoo v Buell, 198 AD2d 819,
appeal dismissed 83 NY2d 800). With respect to plaintiffs Skivers'
appeal, the prior nonfinal Appellate Division order left pending
plaintiffs' separately pleaded claim based on Labor Law §200. With
respect to plaintiffs Bartoo's and Pangburn's appeal, the Appellate
Division order left pending plaintiffs' separately pleaded claims
based on Labor Law §§200 and 240(2). The subsequent Supreme Court
order, entered upon the parties' stipulation, discontinuing all common
law claims expressly reserved all Labor Law claims. Thus,
procedurally, certain statutory claims appear to remain open and
pending.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules,
SNIPPETS:
Philip R. Bartoo, Appellant, v. Robert O. Buell, Respondent Dennis E. Pangburn, Appellant, v.
for appellants Bartoo and Pangburn.
for appellants Skiver.
for third-party respondent.
The appeals taken by the Bartoo and Pangburn plaintiffs and by the Skiver plaintiffs,
With respect to plaintiffs Skivers' appeal, the prior nonfinal Appellate Division order left
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, appeals taken by the Bartoo
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
|
