Opinion
11599 Index 116651/04
06-04-2020
Chi Young LEE as Father and Natural Guardian of Merrick Lee, etc., et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Snezana N. OSORIO, M.D., et al., Defendants, New York Presbyterian Hosp. Weill Cornell Campus, Defendant–Appellant, v. New York City Human Resources Administration, Nonparty Respondent.
Stuart S. Perry, P.C., New York (Franklin P. Solomon of the bar of the State of New Jersey and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, admitted pro hac vice of counsel) and (Stuart S. Perry of counsel), for appellant. Vishnick McGovern Milizio LLP, Lake Success (Andrew A. Kimler of counsel), for Chi Young Lee, respondent. Emmet, Marvin & Martin, LLP, New York (Mordecai Geisler of counsel), for BNY Mellon, N.A., respondent. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eric Lee of counsel), for New York City Human Resources Administration, respondent.
Stuart S. Perry, P.C., New York (Franklin P. Solomon of the bar of the State of New Jersey and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, admitted pro hac vice of counsel) and (Stuart S. Perry of counsel), for appellant.
Vishnick McGovern Milizio LLP, Lake Success (Andrew A. Kimler of counsel), for Chi Young Lee, respondent.
Emmet, Marvin & Martin, LLP, New York (Mordecai Geisler of counsel), for BNY Mellon, N.A., respondent.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eric Lee of counsel), for New York City Human Resources Administration, respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Kern, Singh, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered April 29, 2019, which declined to sign defendant's order to show cause, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.
No appeal lies from an order declining to sign an order to show cause, since it is an ex parte order that does not decide a motion made on notice ( CPLR 5701[a][2] ; Sholes v. Meagher, 100 N.Y.2d 333, 763 N.Y.S.2d 522, 794 N.E.2d 664 [2003] ; Kalyanaram v. New York Inst. of Tech., 91 A.D.3d 532, 936 N.Y.S.2d 543 [1st Dept. 2012] ). To the extent defendant seeks review of the ex parte order pursuant to CPLR 5704, such relief is denied. Review under CPLR 5704 would not, in any event, address the merits of the motion defendant sought to make by order to show cause (see Cypress Hills Mgt., Inc. v. Lempenski, 173 A.D.3d 830, 831, 104 N.Y.S.3d 137 [2d Dept. 2019] ).
To the extent defendant contends that we should review the order or grant leave to appeal in the interest of justice, we decline to do so. This Court has already found that the settlement agreement in this matter obligated defendant to " ‘assume full responsibility’ " for any Medicaid claim arising from the infant's hospitalization ( Commissioner of the Dept. of Social Servs. of the City of N.Y. v New York–Presbyt. Hosp., 164 A.D.3d 93, 94, 82 N.Y.S.3d 390 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 901, 2019 WL 1460767 [2019] ).