Case Title: Empire Financial Services, Inc. v. The Bank of New York (Delaware)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2000-11-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE.

EMPIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES,  §
INC,, § No, 504, 2000
§
Plaintiff Below, $
Appellant, §
§ Court Below: Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§ in and for New Castle County
‘THE BANK OF NEW YORK § C.A. No, 9C-01-207
(DELAWARE), §
8
Defendant Below, 5
Appellee. 5

‘Submitted: November 1, 2000
Decided: November 13, 2000

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER

This 13" day of November 2000, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On October 17, 2000, this Court received the appellant, Empire
Financial Services, Inc.'s, notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s decision of
‘September 18, 2000, which granted a motion to dismiss the Bank of New York
(Delaware) in the above-captioned matter.

(2) On October 19, 2000, the Clerk of the Supreme Court issued a
notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Empire to show cause

why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme
Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.

Empire filed a response to the Notice to Show Cause on November 1, 2000. I
its response, Empire states itis not seeking an appeal pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 42, It merely wished to preserve its right to appeal given its uncertainty
regarding the finality of Superior Court’s decision. Empire also states that there
are claims pending against another party to the Superior Court case that remain
unresolved.

(3) Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this Court is
limited to the review of final judgment of trial courts.’ An order is deemed final
if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court’s
“final act” in the case.? At the time Empire filed its appeal in this Court, there
were claims that remained pending against other parties in the case in the
Superior Court

(4) The proceedings before the Superior Court are ongoing. Until all
issues are disposed of, the judgment of September 18, 2000, is not final

Accordingly, an appeal from the Superior Court to this Court is premature absent

 

Julian v. State, Del. Supr., 440 A.24 990, 991 (1982),

* J.1. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., Del. Supr., 303
A.2d 648, 650 (1973).

2
compliance with the requiremeats for taking an interlocutory appeal in
accordance with Supreme Court Rule 42. Appellant has not attempted to
comply with this Rule.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that appellant’s appeal is
DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

Cie hatin