New York Law Review

State Commission for Human Rights v. Senti, 29 N.Y.2d 254 (1971): Appealability of Intermediate Orders in Special Proceedings

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

State Commission for Human Rights v. Senti, 29 N.Y.2d 254 (1971)

An order of the Supreme Court vacating a State Commission for Human Rights order and remitting the matter for a new hearing is appealable as of right to the Appellate Division because it is a final or interlocutory judgment in a special proceeding, and is not an Article 78 proceeding.

Summary

The State Commission for Human Rights appealed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of its appeal from a Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court had vacated the Commission’s order against the respondents and remitted the matter for a new hearing, citing improper notice. The Appellate Division dismissed the Commission’s appeal, holding the Supreme Court’s order was an unappealable intermediate order. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Supreme Court’s order was appealable as of right because the enforcement proceeding initiated by the Commission was a special proceeding, not an Article 78 proceeding, thus falling under the general rule allowing appeals from final or interlocutory judgments.

Facts

The State Commission for Human Rights issued an order against the respondents, presumably related to a human rights violation. The respondents contested the order, arguing they did not receive proper notice of the initial proceedings. The Supreme Court, Queens County, agreed with the respondents after reargument, vacated the Commission’s order, and remitted the case back to the Commission for a new hearing, directing that proper notice be given this time.

Procedural History

1. The State Commission for Human Rights issued an order against the respondents.
2. The respondents challenged the order in Supreme Court, Queens County.
3. The Supreme Court vacated the Commission’s order and remitted the matter for a new hearing.
4. The Commission appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
5. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, deeming the Supreme Court’s order an unappealable intermediate order.
6. The Court of Appeals granted the Commission leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether an order of the Supreme Court vacating a State Commission for Human Rights order and remitting the matter for a new hearing is appealable as of right to the Appellate Division.

Holding

Yes, because the proceeding to enforce the Commission’s order is a special proceeding under the CPLR, and the Supreme Court’s order was a final or interlocutory judgment, not an unappealable intermediate order in an Article 78 proceeding.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals focused on whether the Supreme Court’s order was appealable as of right. The Appellate Division relied on cases involving Article 78 proceedings, where intermediate orders are generally not appealable as of right. However, the Court of Appeals distinguished this case, noting that the proceeding was initiated by the Commission to enforce its order under Section 298 of the Executive Law, making it a special proceeding, not an Article 78 proceeding. The Court cited CPLR 5701(a)(1), which allows appeals as of right from any final or interlocutory judgment in an action originating in the Supreme Court. CPLR 105(b) defines “action” to include a special proceeding. The court stated that 5701 (subd. [b], par. 1), which restricts appeals from intermediate orders in Article 78 proceedings, does not apply here. Therefore, the general rule allowing appeals from final or interlocutory judgments in special proceedings applied. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for consideration of the merits, concluding that an appeal as of right did lie. The court noted that at the time of the proceeding, Section 298 provided that review from Supreme Court determinations should be treated in the same manner as any appeal from a judgement in a special proceeding.

More ARTICLES