MONTANARO, KRISTY v. WEICHERT, ROBERT M. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1155
    CA 16-00630
    PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
    KRISTY MONTANARO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
    V                             MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    ROBERT M. WEICHERT AND SUSAN M. WEICHERT,
    DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
    (APPEAL NO. 1.)
    ROBERT M. WEICHERT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
    SUSAN M. WEICHERT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
    CONOR J. KIRCHNER, SYRACUSE, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County
    (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), dated November 25, 2014. The order granted
    the motion of plaintiff for leave to amend the complaint.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendants appeal from an order
    granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to add
    Susan M. Weichert as a defendant. We note at the outset that,
    although the order is dated November 25, 2014 and the notice of appeal
    is dated July 28, 2015, the record does not contain a notice of entry
    and therefore the 30-day period in which to file a notice of appeal
    was not triggered (see CPLR 5513 [a]). Although the notice of appeal
    is premature, we nevertheless treat it as valid (see CPLR 5520 [c]).
    With respect to appeal No. 2, however, defendants purport to appeal
    from a decision granting plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment.
    Inasmuch as no appeal lies from a decision, that appeal is dismissed
    (see CPLR 5512 [a]; Gay v Gay, 118 AD3d 1331, 1332, lv dismissed 25
    NY3d 1015).
    Plaintiff commenced this action alleging, pursuant to Executive
    Law § 296 (5) (a) (1), that Robert M. Weichert (defendant) engaged in
    discriminatory practices with respect to rental property he owned.
    Following his deposition in which he stated that his wife owned the
    property, plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint to add
    Susan M. Weichert as a defendant. Contrary to defendants’ contention,
    the amended complaint alleged sufficient facts to establish a prima
    facie case for discrimination inasmuch as plaintiff alleged that she
    is a member of a protected class and was qualified to rent housing
    -2-                          1155
    CA 16-00630
    that was denied her under circumstances that gave rise to an inference
    of unlawful discrimination (see generally Matter of New York State
    Div. of Human Rights v Caprarella, 82 AD3d 773, 774). Specifically,
    plaintiff alleged that she was a woman with a minor child who inquired
    about an apartment advertised in a local newspaper and that, when she
    went to view the apartment, defendant told her that he did not allow
    children to live in the rental property. She further alleged that
    defendant acted with the consent and authority of defendant Susan M.
    Weichert, the owner, when he refused to rent the premises to plaintiff
    based on her familial status. We have reviewed defendants’ remaining
    contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
    Entered:   December 23, 2016                    Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 16-00630

Judges: Whalen, Smith, Peradot-To, Nemoyer, Scudder

Filed Date: 12/23/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024