Opinion
January 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' attorney's opening statement, the defendants' attorney made an application to "dismiss all claims regarding economic loss as they have not been [pleaded] in the complaint". In an oral decision from the Bench, the Justice presiding in the Supreme Court denied this application, and granted the application by the plaintiffs' attorney for a mistrial and for leave to serve an amended complaint. These dispositions were reduced to a writing dated October 26, 1992, signed by the Justice in the Supreme Court. It is from this paper that the defendants now appeal.
The appeal should be dismissed. The paper appealed from in this case constituted a ruling, or more accurately a series of related rulings, made during the course of a trial. No appeal lies from such rulings (see, CPLR 5701; see also, Radford v. Sheridan Prods., 181 A.D.2d 667; Savarese v. City of New York Hous. Auth., 172 A.D.2d 506; Brown v. Micheletti, 97 A.D.2d 529; Kopstein v. City of New York, 87 A.D.2d 547; 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac ¶ 5701.16a). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.