The opinion
Judge Greene
dissenting.
The law with respect to whether an interlocutory appeal affects a substantial right is best summarily stated as follows: “so long as a claim has been finally determined, delaying the appeal of that final determination will ordinarily affect a substantial right if there are overlapping factual issues between the claim determined and any claims which have not yet been determined.” Davidson v. Knauff Ins. Agency, 93 N.C. App. 20, 26 , 376 S.E.2d 488, 492 , disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 577 , 381 S.E.2d 772 (1989).
*299 In this case, the summary judgment finally determined Coastal’s counterclaims. I also believe the complaint and counterclaims present “overlapping factual issues” in that the claims all revolve around the construction and performance of the 1 November 1996 “EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT” (the Agreement). For example, the complaint sought and Murphy received an attachment of certain proceeds pursuant to the Agreement; 1 whereas Coastal’s answer asserts a counterclaim alleging the attachment of those proceeds was wrongful.
Accordingly, Coastal’s current appeal of the trial court’s order granting Murphy’s summary judgment motions, although interlocutory, affects a substantial right. I, therefore, would allow the appeal.
. This order of attachment was subsequently dissolved.