Case Name: Batoul Herbert et al., Appellants, v. Morgan Drive-A-Way, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 1.); Dorothy Mollicone, Appellant, v. Errol K. Miller et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1994-09-01
Citations: 84 N.Y.2d 835
Docket Number: 
Parties: Batoul Herbert et al., Appellants, v Morgan Drive-A-Way, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 1.) Dorothy Mollicone, Appellant, v Errol K. Miller et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 835–838

Head Matter:
[641 NE2d 147, 617 NYS2d 127]
Batoul Herbert et al., Appellants, v Morgan Drive-A-Way, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 1.) Dorothy Mollicone, Appellant, v Errol K. Miller et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 2.)
Decided September 1, 1994
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Cynthia Feathers, Saratoga, and Eli B. Bosch, Kingston, for Batoul Herbert and another, appellants.
Hurley, Fox, Selig & Kelleher, Stony Point (Jeanne M. Hurley and Benjamin E. Selig of counsel), for Dorothy Mollicone, appellant.
Petito & LaRose, Poughkeepsie (Keith V. LaRose of counsel), for Morgan Drive-A-Way, Inc. and Errol K. Miller, respondents.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), appeal by the Herberts dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the Appellate Division order does not finally determine action No. 1 within the meaning of the Constitution. The order appealed from in action No. 1 does not resolve plaintiffs' claim against Dorothy Mollicone, and her cross claim against defendants Morgan Drive-A-Way, Inc. and Errol K. Miller has never been dismissed. Accordingly, claims remain pending with respect to all parties in action No. 1. On appeal by plaintiff Dorothy Mollicone in action No. 2, order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and defendants' motion for summary judgment in action No. 2 denied, for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum of Justice Paul J. Yesawich, Jr., at the Appellate Division (202 AD2d 886, 888).
Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick.