23 N.Y.2d 253 (1968)

An order in a special proceeding brought by the State Commission for Human Rights to enforce its order is appealable as of right to the Appellate Division, as it is treated as an appeal from a judgment in a special proceeding.

Summary

The State Commission for Human Rights appealed the dismissal of its appeal concerning an order denying its application to enforce its order against Sary Lieber. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, deeming the Special Term’s order an unappealable intermediate order. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the order was appealable as of right because the proceeding was not an Article 78 proceeding but a special proceeding to enforce the Commission’s order under Section 298 of the Executive Law. This distinction meant CPLR 5701(a)(1) applied, allowing an appeal as of right in a special proceeding.

Facts

The State Commission for Human Rights sought to enforce an order against Sary Lieber. The Supreme Court, Special Term, denied the Commission’s application and vacated the Commission’s order, remitting the matter for a new hearing with proper notice. The Commission appealed this decision to the Appellate Division.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court, Special Term, denied the Commission’s application to enforce its order. The Appellate Division dismissed the Commission’s appeal, holding that the order of the Special Term was an intermediate order and not appealable as of right. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and subsequently reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether an order of the Supreme Court, Special Term, denying the State Commission for Human Rights’ application to enforce its order, vacating the Commission’s order, and remitting the matter for a new hearing, is appealable as of right to the Appellate Division.

Holding

Yes, because the proceeding was instituted by the Commission to enforce its order pursuant to Section 298 of the Executive Law, making it a special proceeding rather than an Article 78 proceeding. As such, it falls under the purview of CPLR 5701(a)(1), which allows appeals as of right in special proceedings.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from those involving Article 78 proceedings, where intermediate orders are not appealable as of right under CPLR 5701(b)(1). The court emphasized that this proceeding was initiated by the Commission to enforce its order under Section 298 of the Executive Law, which at the time, provided that Supreme Court determinations should be treated as appeals from a judgment in a special proceeding. CPLR 5701(a)(1) 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 reasoned that since this was not an Article 78 proceeding, the general language of 5701(a)(1) applied, making the order appealable as of right. The court stated, “At the time this proceeding was instituted, section 298 provided that the Supreme Court would have exclusive jurisdiction in such proceedings, and review from their determinations should be treated in the same manner as any appeal from a judgment in a special proceeding.” Thus, the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the matter for a consideration of the merits, clarifying that the appeal should have been heard on its merits rather than dismissed on procedural grounds.