Case Name: Norman Redlich, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Capri Cinema, Inc. et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.); Norman Redlich, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Mature Enterprises, Inc. et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.); Norman Redlich, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Mod Amusement Co., Inc. et al., Appellants. (Action No. 3.); Norman Redlich, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Lido West Theatre, Inc. et al., Appellants. (Action No. 4.)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1974-02-13
Citations: 33 N.Y.2d 974
Docket Number: 
Parties: Norman Redlich, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Capri Cinema, Inc. et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.) Norman Redlich, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Mature Enterprises, Inc. et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.) Norman Redlich, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Mod Amusement Co., Inc. et al., Appellants. (Action No. 3.)
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 974–975

Head Matter:
Norman Redlich, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Capri Cinema, Inc. et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.) Norman Redlich, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Mature Enterprises, Inc. et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.) Norman Redlich, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Mod Amusement Co., Inc. et al., Appellants. (Action No. 3.)
Norman Redlich, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Lido West Theatre, Inc. et al., Appellants. (Action No. 4.)
Submitted January 14, 1974;
decided February 13, 1974.
Ralph J. Schwarz, Jr. for motion. -
Norman Redlich, Corporation Counsel (Jesse ' J. Fine of counsel), and Franlt S. Kogan, District Attorney (Lewis R. Friedman of counsel), opposed.

Opinion:
Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements, upon the ground that the nonfinal order sought to be appealed from was entered in an action, not a proceeding, and therefore is not one which comes within the provisions of ÜPLR 5602 (subd. [a], par. 2).