Ackermann v. Town of Riverhead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ackermann v. Town of Riverhead

245 A.D.2d 404, 666 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13082

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for the alleged destruction of property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 10, 1997, which denied his motion denominated as one to restore the case to the trial calendar, but which was, in effect, a motion to reargue his prior motion to restore the case to the calendar.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

While denominated a motion to restore the case to the trial calendar and characterized by the court as a motion to reargue and/or renew, the plaintiffs motion was actually one to reargue his prior motion to restore the case to the calendar. Consequently, the order denying his motion is not appealable (see, McGill v Polytechnic Univ., 235 AD2d 402; King v Rockaway One Co., 202 AD2d 395). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a negligence action to recover damages for the alleged destruction of property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 10, 1997, which denied his motion denominated as one to restore the case to the trial calendar, but which was, in effect, a motion to reargue his prior motion to restore the case to the calendar.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

While denominated a motion to restore the case to the trial calendar and characterized by the court as a motion to reargue and/or renew, the plaintiffs motion was actually one to reargue his prior motion to restore the case to the calendar. Consequently, the order denying his motion is not appealable (see, McGill v Polytechnic Univ., 235 AD2d 402; King v Rockaway One Co., 202 AD2d 395). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Ackermann v. Town of Riverhead, 245 A.D.2d 404, 666 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

245 A.D.2d 404 (Ackermann v. Town of Riverhead) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related