CIAMPI v. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the appellant is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511).

As the appellant recognizes, leave to appeal from the portion of the order directing an in camera inspection is required (see Navedo v. Nichols, 233 A.D.2d 378). We decline to grant leave because the appellant, which suggested the in camera inspection, is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511).

To the extent that the appellant raises issues addressing the merits of the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, such issues are not properly before us since the Supreme Court has yet to decide the motion (see Doe v. Inman Constr. Corp., 281 A.D.2d 387, 388; Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536).

FLORIO, J.P., O'BRIEN, FRIEDMANN, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.