Case Name: Tamar Ross, Respondent-Appellant, v. Howard Ross et al., Appellants-Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1982-02-23
Citations: 55 N.Y.2d 999
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tamar Ross, Respondent-Appellant, v Howard Ross et al., Appellants-Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 999–1002

Head Matter:
Tamar Ross, Respondent-Appellant, v Howard Ross et al., Appellants-Respondents.
Decided February 23, 1982
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Joel Sankel and Claudio B. Bergamasco for appellants-respondents.
Alexander Potruch, Kenneth Koopersmith and Michael K. Feigenbaum for respondent-appellant.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]): Plaintiff's cross appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the cross appeal pursuant to CPLR 5601 (subd [d]) does not lie because the cross appellant is not a party aggrieved by the prior nonfinal order of the Appellate Division (CPLR 5511). Defendants' appeal pursuant to CPLR 5601 (subd [a], par [ii]) dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution and a separate appeal does not lie (see Matter of Aho [Rhodes], 39 NY2d 241, 248). On defendants' appeal, pursuant to CPLR 5601 (subd [d]), from the judgment of separation entered in Supreme Court, Queens County, judgment affirmed for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division.
Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.