On December 23, 2021, the Fourth Department issued a decision in Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh, 2021 NY Slip Op. 07352, dismissing appeals because the appellants were not aggrieved parties, explaining:
Martha is not aggrieved by the order from which she purports to cross-appeal because that order neither granted relief against her nor denied any motion for affirmative relief on her own behalf. Martha’s support for plaintiffs’ efforts to void the CBI Purchases and the Kavcon Purchases does not make her an aggrieved party in a technical sense; aggrievement is about relief, not reasoning, and the fact that Martha may be disappointed or even have been deprived of a financial benefit by the adjudications does not, without more, make her a party aggrieved within the meaning of CPLR 5511. Rather, to qualify as a party aggrieved under CPLR 5511, it must be shown that such party had some legal right or interest in the subject of the determination which was adversely affected thereby. Martha’s cross appeal must therefore be dismissed.
We likewise dismiss Neil’s cross appeal. Neil did not formally cross-move for affirmative relief on his own behalf, the court did not grant relief against him, and he is not individually aggrieved by the denial of CBI’s and Kavcon’s cross motion because that portion of the order affected at most only the purported rights of the corporations, and not Neil’s individual rights. Neil’s belated attempt, following oral argument of the motions, to orally join in” CBI’s and Kavcon’s cross motion was ineffective in light of his failure to formally join that cross motion in compliance with CPLR 2215. To the extent that Neil’s oral attempt to join in CBI’s and Kavcon’s cross motion could be construed as an independent application for summary judgment dismissing the first and second causes of action as against himself, and to the further extent that the order on appeal could be read to deny such an application, we note only that the denial of an oral application made on the return date is not appealable as of right under CPLR 5701 (a) (2) because such an application is not a proper cross motion made on notice under CPLR 2215.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added).