Opinion
02-25-2016
In re Susan CRAWFORD, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS, Respondent–Respondent.
David A. Schulz, New York, for appellants. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Scott Shorr of counsel), for respondent.
David A. Schulz, New York, for appellants.Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Scott Shorr of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on or about March 27, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted respondent's cross motion to seal the papers it filed in opposition to the CPLR article 78 petition and the papers that petitioners filed in reply, unanimously dismissed, without costs.
Petitioners' right to appeal from the order terminated with the entry of the final judgment in this proceeding (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 [1976] ). We reject any suggestion by petitioners that the rule stated in Matter of Aho is inapplicable to sealing orders, such as the order at issue on appeal (see Anonymous v. Anonymous, 251 A.D.2d 610, 675 N.Y.S.2d 551 [2d Dept.1998] ). Further, the Aho rule is applicable even if the order appealed from does not necessarily affect the final judgment (see Siegmund Strauss, Inc. v. East 149th Realty Corp., 81 A.D.3d 260, 266–267, 919 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept.2010], mod on other grounds 20 N.Y.3d 37, 956 N.Y.S.2d 435, 980 N.E.2d 483 [2012] ). The order is a nonfinal, intermediate order, because it did not dispose of the petition seeking certain documents; the doctrine of implied severance does not apply (see Burke v. Crosson, 85 N.Y.2d 10, 15–17, 623 N.Y.S.2d 524, 647 N.E.2d 736 [1995] ).
MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.