Sontag v. Sontag
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Campo v. Sontag (In re Sontag) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 1993)
- Burke v. Crosson (N.Y. 1995)
- Gyabaah v. Rivlab Transportation Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Gyabaah v. Rivlab Transportation Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Yerushalmi v. Abed Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Gutzmer v. Santini (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Mission of Saudia Arabia to the United Nations v. Kirkwood Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Tauber v. Bankers Trust Co. (N.Y. 2000)
- SCP (Bermuda), Inc. v. Bermudatel, Ltd. (N.Y. 1996)
- Javarone v. Pallone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Heller v. State (N.Y. 1993)
- Washo v. Washo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Krupski v. Krupski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Bossom v. Bossom (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Yuda v. Yuda (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Golfinopoulos v. Golfinopoulos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Popescu v. Comoletti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Buys v. County of Nassau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Mr. Galvanized, Inc. v. B. S. Livingston & Co. (N.Y. 1986)
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
In this matrimonial action, plaintiff seeks leave to appeal from an order of the Appellate Division which unanimously affirmed an order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, which after granting defendant husband’s motion to enforce a stipulation entered into by the parties and incorporating the terms of the stipulation into the order, ordered that "all remaining issues in this litigation are hereby severed for the purposes of trial.”
An order which completely disposes of the claims of one party but leaves pending issues as to another party is final as to the former but not the latter (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 20 [rev ed]). An order which finally adjudicates a cause of action which is unrelated to, and independent of, another cause of action in a complaint or counterclaim is final as to the former but not the latter. However, an order such as that in the present case which decides some issues of relief but leaves pending between the same parties other such issues would, in effect, divide a single cause of action and is, therefore, nonfinal (Le Mistral v Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 61 AD2d 491, appeal dismissed 46 NY2d 940; Cohen and Karger, op. cit. § 21, at 92).
The motion for leave to appeal should, therefore, be dismissed for nonfinality.
Judge Hancock, Jr., taking no part.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.