Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-00775
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC, Judge Abrams denied Philip Columbo’s request to appeal earlier orders immediately.
Philip Columbo’s request for permission to take an immediate appeal was denied; the opinion also concerns the defendants named in the case because the proposed appeal involved an earlier partial dismissal of Columbo’s second amended complaint.
What happened
In Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC, Philip Columbo asked to immediately appeal two earlier orders: one that granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss part of his second amended complaint and one that denied reconsideration.
Columbo had filed a notice of appeal but did not ask the court to certify an immediate appeal. The court treated his notice as a request for permission to take an immediate appeal. It explained that permission requires a controlling legal question, a substantial disagreement about that question, and a showing that an immediate appeal would help end the case sooner.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the request. She found that the required factors were not met, including because Columbo had not shown a substantial disagreement about the legal issues or that an immediate appeal would save judicial resources. The court said an immediate appeal would likely prolong the litigation.
The detailed version
- Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00775
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 14, 2025
Background
On May 8, 2025, Philip Columbo filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from two earlier orders. The December 3, 2024 order granted in part the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The April 8, 2025 order denied Columbo’s motion for reconsideration.
Columbo did not request certification of an immediate appeal, and the court determined that the collateral order doctrine did not apply. The court therefore treated his notice of appeal as an application for permission to take an interlocutory appeal.
Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may permit an immediate appeal from an order that involves a controlling question of law, presents substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and could materially advance the end of the litigation. Even when those requirements are met, the court has broad discretion to deny certification.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the requirements were not satisfied. Referring to its denial of Columbo’s motion for reconsideration, the court found no substantial ground for disagreement about the controlling legal issues decided in the earlier orders. It also found that Columbo had not shown that an immediate appeal would save judicial resources or otherwise avoid prolonged litigation. The court stated that an immediate appeal of the partial dismissal decisions would likely prolong the litigation, which began in 2022.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Columbo’s motion for leave to appeal. The order did not otherwise alter the earlier orders’ dispositions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.