Opinion
2011-12-27
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.
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.
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 A.D.3d 852, 852, 857 N.Y.S.2d 171; Cosh v. Cosh, 45 A.D.3d 798, 799, 847 N.Y.S.2d 136; Griggs v. Griggs, 44 A.D.3d 710, 711, 844 N.Y.S.2d 351; ELRAC, Inc. v. Belessis, 303 A.D.2d 445, 446, 755 N.Y.S.2d 895; Napolitano v. Kaddoch, 275 A.D.2d 445, 445, 712 N.Y.S.2d 893; Naar v. Litwak & Co., 260 A.D.2d 613, 614, 688 N.Y.S.2d 698; Clark v. Weiner, 254 A.D.2d 322, 322, 678 N.Y.S.2d 293). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.