What did the court decide?

The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the document appealed from was a non-appealable decision, not a formal order, so there was nothing the appellate court could review.

Who is affected by this decision?

Plaintiff Christopher Monfort is affected because his attempt to appeal the dismissal of his negligent supervision claim was dismissed; defendants are unaffected by further appellate review at this time.

What happens next in the case?

Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of an appealable order, the underlying Supreme Court disposition (the partial grant of summary judgment) stands unless the plaintiff obtains a proper order or other basis for appellate review.

Can this be appealed again?

Possibly, but only if plaintiff obtains or identifies an appealable order or another proper basis for appellate jurisdiction; simply relabeling the same document is insufficient.

Monfort v. Alden Cent. Sch. Dist.

Docket 90 CA 25-00138

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed

Filed: May 1, 2026 · 5 days ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02738
Docket: 90 CA 25-00138

Appeal from a Supreme Court decision purportedly granting in part defendants' motion for summary judgment in an action under the Child Victims Act.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department dismissed plaintiff Monfort's appeal of a Supreme Court decision because the document appealed from was a non-appealable decision rather than an appealable order. Plaintiff sought review of the portion of the paper that granted summary judgment dismissing his negligent supervision claim under the Child Victims Act. The appellate panel concluded the paper, though labeled "Decision and Order," did not meet statutory requirements for an order and did not actually order anything, so there was no appealable instrument and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues Decided

Whether the document labeled "Decision and Order" constituted an appealable order under CPLR requirements
Whether the portion of defendants' motion granting summary judgment dismissing the negligent supervision claim was properly appealable

Court's Reasoning

The court held that a paper labeled "Decision and Order" is not automatically an appealable order. Under CPLR 2219(a), an order must recite the papers used on the motion, and the document here failed to include those essential elements and did not actually command any relief. Because there was no appealable order, the appellate court lacked a basis to hear the appeal and therefore dismissed it.

Authorities Cited

CPLR 2219(a)
Garcia v Town of Tonawanda194 AD3d 1479 (4th Dept 2021)
Pecora v Lawrence28 AD3d 1136 (4th Dept 2006)

Parties

Plaintiff: Christopher Monfort
Defendant: Alden Central School District
Defendant: Alden Central School District Board of Education
Attorney: Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. (Jason P. Weinstein of counsel)
Attorney: Hodgson Russ LLP (Hugh M. Russ, III, of counsel)
Judge: Daniel Furlong
Judge: Lindley, J.P.

Key Dates

Appellate decision date: 2026-05-01
Supreme Court order date (entry date): 2025-01-14

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel
Speak with an appellate lawyer to determine whether a proper, appealable order can be obtained or whether a new motion or application should be made in Supreme Court.
2
Seek reformation or entry of a formal order
Consider asking the Supreme Court to enter a formal order that meets CPLR 2219(a) requirements reciting the papers and plainly granting or denying relief, creating an appealable instrument.
3
Evaluate alternative remedies
Review whether any other procedural mechanisms (e.g., leave to reargue or renewal) are available in Supreme Court to challenge the summary judgment ruling before pursuing further appellate review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the document appealed from was a non-appealable decision, not a formal order, so there was nothing the appellate court could review.
Who is affected by this decision?: Plaintiff Christopher Monfort is affected because his attempt to appeal the dismissal of his negligent supervision claim was dismissed; defendants are unaffected by further appellate review at this time.
What happens next in the case?: Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of an appealable order, the underlying Supreme Court disposition (the partial grant of summary judgment) stands unless the plaintiff obtains a proper order or other basis for appellate review.
Can this be appealed again?: Possibly, but only if plaintiff obtains or identifies an appealable order or another proper basis for appellate jurisdiction; simply relabeling the same document is insufficient.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Monfort v Alden Cent. Sch. Dist. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02738

Monfort v Alden Cent. Sch. Dist.

2026 NY Slip Op 02738

May 1, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

CHRISTOPHER MONFORT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v

ALDEN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ALDEN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on May 1, 2026

90 CA 25-00138

Present: Lindley, J.P., Curran, Ogden, Greenwood, And Hannah, JJ.

WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C., NEW YORK CITY (JASON P. WEINSTEIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (HUGH M. RUSS, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a "decision and order" of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Daniel Furlong, J.), entered January 14, 2025. The "decision and order" granted in part the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: In this action pursuant to the Child Victims Act (
see
CPLR 214-g), plaintiff purports to appeal from the "Decision and Order," as limited by his brief, to the extent that it granted that part of defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing his second cause of action, for negligent supervision of plaintiff while acting in loco parentis. We dismiss the appeal. " '[N]o appeal lies from a [mere] decision,' " and a document does not become an order simply because it has been denominated as such (
Garcia v Town of Tonawanda
, 194 AD3d 1479, 1479 [4th Dept 2021];
see Allen v Grimm
, 208 AD3d 1589, 1589-1590 [4th Dept 2022];
Kuhn v Kuhn
, 129 AD2d 967, 967 [4th Dept 1987]). Although the paper contains the words "Decision and Order," it does not meet the essential elements of an order inasmuch as it does not "recite the papers used on the motion" (CPLR 2219 [a]), and furthermore "that document did not actually order anything" (
Pecora v Lawrence
, 28 AD3d 1136, 1137 [4th Dept 2006];
see Prevost v Associated Materials
,
LLC
, 239 AD3d 1235, 1236 [4th Dept 2025]).

Entered: May 1, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn