Defining an aggrieved party

In Mixon v. TBV, Inc., the Second Department addressed whether a person can be aggrieved where the relief granted was not sought against that person but was sought against a third person?  The Court set forth a two-pronged definition of the concept of aggrievement.  

“First, a person is aggrieved when he or she asks for relief but that relief is denied in whole or in part. Second, a person is aggrieved when someone asks for relief against him or her, which the person opposes, and the relief is granted in whole or in part.  Based on this test the court held that Applying the second prong of that definition to the case at bar, it is apparent that both the plaintiffs and the limousine defendants were aggrieved by the order of the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs by the portion thereof that awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the van defendants, and the limousine defendants by the portion thereof that awarded summary judgment dismissing their cross claim against the van defendants. The limousine defendants were not aggrieved, however, by the portion of the order that granted the branch of the van defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the van defendants because that branch of the motion sought relief against the plaintiffs and not against the limousine defendants.”

The court also held that even though the plaintiffs could not seek relief on the appeal because she did not file a notice of appeal, the plaintiffs are not necessarily without a remedy.  The plaintiff could seek relief on a motion for leave to reargue, or on a subsequent appeal from the judgment.