Columbo v. Philips Bryant Park LLC
1:22-cv-00775
S.D.N.Y.May 14, 2025Background
- Philip Columbo filed suit against The Bryant Park Hotel LLC and related entities and individuals, alleging unspecified claims.
- The court had previously issued two orders: one partially granting defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dec. 3, 2024) and another denying Columbo's motion for reconsideration (Apr. 8, 2025).
- On May 8, 2025, Columbo filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal regarding these two orders.
- Columbo did not request certification for an immediate appeal nor did the case fit the narrow collateral order doctrine.
- The court treated Columbo’s notice as a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- The court denied the motion, finding the statutory criteria under § 1292(b) were not met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b) | Orders involve controlling law, dispute, and appeal may advance case | Criteria not satisfied; case should proceed | Motion for leave to appeal denied |
| Substantial ground for difference of opinion | There is disagreement on key legal issues | No substantial disagreement | No substantial ground for difference found |
| Material advancement of litigation | Immediate appeal would save resources | Appeal would prolong the case | Immediate appeal would not advance litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Century Pac., Inc. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 574 F. Supp. 2d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (district courts have broad discretion to deny § 1292(b) certification)
- Kogut v. Cnty. of Nassau, 2010 WL 844745 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (no substantial ground for difference of opinion—a court must find real disagreement on controlling law)