Kenford Company, Inc. v. County of Erie

New York Court of Appeals · Contracts

Contractsappealfinal orderfinal determinationjurisdictiondismissal

Facts

The opinion states only that a party sought leave to appeal from an order. The court addressed whether that order finally determined the action within the meaning of the Constitution. No underlying contract facts are described in the opinion text provided. Two judges took no part in the decision.

Issue

Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the order sought to be appealed does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Rule

A motion for leave to appeal must be dismissed when the order sought to be appealed does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a contract suit in Albany, Maya Ortiz sued North River Fabrication, LLC for unpaid consulting fees. The intermediate appellate court reversed a discovery sanction and sent the case back for further proceedings, leaving liability and damages unresolved.

If Maya moves for leave to appeal that order to the state's highest court, what is the best result under the governing rule?

Explanation. The only rule established here is jurisdictional finality: a motion for leave to appeal must be dismissed when the order sought to be appealed does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Because further proceedings remain and the action is not over, the order is nonfinal. The court would not reach the merits. (Derived from Kenford Company, Inc. v. County of Erie (n.d.).)