New York Court of Appeals, 1982

Ross v. Ross

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 23, 1982

55 N.Y.2d 999; 449 N.Y.S.2d 481; 434 N.E.2d 717; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3173

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (Mich. 1988)
Davenport v. Martin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Bass v. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2001)
Carr v. WestLB Administration, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2001)
Torres v. Pisano (2d Cir. 1997)
Torres v. Pisano (2d Cir. 1997)
Gerzog v. London Fog Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 1995)
Drummer v. DCI Contracting Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1991)
Burger v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York (District Court, S.D. New York 1988)
Murphy v. American Home Products Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Barbetta v. Chemlawn Services Corp. (District Court, W.D. New York 1987)
Boscaglia v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. (Mich. 1985)
Zuckerman v. Zuckerman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Stella v. Stella (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Ullo v. Ullo (New York Supreme Court 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

*1002Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.