A “So-Ordered” Letter Decision Is Not Always Appealable in New York

At A Glance:

Summary: A short decision from the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, provides an important lesson in New York appellate practice. In Prevost v Associated Materials, LLC, the plaintiff appealed from a so-ordered “letter decision and order.” The Court dismissed the appeal because it was not an appealable paper.

Court: Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Decision Date: June 6, 2025

Case: Prevost v Associated Materials, LLC, 239 AD3d 1235 (4th Dept 2025)

Topic: Appeals, Appellate Procedure, Appealable Paper


The Court’s Position:

The Fourth Department stated that the so-ordered “letter decision and order” was missing the essential elements of an order CPLR 2219(a). In particular, the document did not recite the papers used on the motion. The Court warned that a document does not become an order even when it is denominated as such. The Court dismissed the appeal from the so-ordered letter decision and order.


What Happened:

The plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after falling from a homeowner’s roof while working for C&M Renovations.

There were two appeals.

In Appeal No. 1, the plaintiff appealed from an order granting Creekside Renovations, LLC.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

In Appeal No. 2, the plaintiff attempted to appeal from a separate “letter decision and order” that denied his motion for partial summary judgment against Creekside on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).

The Fourth Department dismissed Appeal No. 2 because the letter decision was not an appealable order.


Key Language from the Decision:


The Decision:

The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s second appeal from the letter decision.

The Fourth Department explained that a party cannot appeal from a mere decision. A decision tells the parties how the court resolved an issue, but it is not the same thing as an order. For appellate purposes, the document must satisfy the essential requirements of an order.

Here, the letter decision was not enough. Even though it was described as a “letter decision and order” and contained the words “so ordered,” it did not satisfy CPLR 2219(a) because it did not recite the papers used on the motion.

Since the document did not meet the statutory requirements for an order, the plaintiff could not appeal from it.


From a Claims Perspective:

This decision is a useful reminder that appellate rights can turn on procedure, not just the merits. For claims adjusters and litigators, the lesson is simple: Before evaluating an appeal, confirm that the paper from which the party is appealing is actually an appealable order.

A letter decision may explain how the court ruled, and it may even include the words “so ordered,” but that does not make it an order for appellate purposes.


Why This Matters:

First, this decision highlights a procedural trap that can affect appellate rights. A party may believe it has an appealable paper simply because the trial court issued a written ruling, but a written ruling is not always an appealable order.

Second, the decision reinforces that labels do not control. Calling a document an “order” or adding “so ordered” language does not automatically make it an appealable paper.

Third, this issue matters for claims handling because appellate strategy, reserves, reporting, and litigation budgets can all depend on whether there is a valid appealable order.


Practice Pointers:


Forward This Post

If this decision affects a claim file, coverage position, or motion strategy, forward it to the person handling the issue.

Read more New York Civil Law analysis here.


Questions This Case Answers:


Authority:

The Court relied on the settled rule that no appeal lies from a mere decision. It cited Fourth Department authority holding that a document does not become appealable simply because it is labeled an order.

The Court also relied on CPLR 2219(a), which identifies requirements for an order determining a motion, including that the order recite the papers used on the motion. Because the letter decision did not do that, it was not an appealable order.


Sources:

CPLR 2219(a)

Prevost v Associated Materials, LLC, 239 AD3d 1237 (4th Dept 2025)

Garcia v Town of Tonawanda, 194 AD3d 1479 (4th Dept 2021)

Pino v Harnischfeger, 42 AD3d 980 (4th Dept 2007)



Related Topics:

CPLR 2219(a), appealable orders, New York appellate practice, preserving appellate rights

Photo Credit: Waldemar Brandt

Discover more from New York Civil Law

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading