Alvi v. Daimler Trust/Daimler Tit.

72 Misc. 3d 139(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50780(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: August 5, 2021
• Docket: 2020-676 N C
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Alvi v Daimler Trust/Daimler Tit. (2021 NY Slip Op 50780(U)) [*1]

Alvi v Daimler Trust/Daimler Tit.

2021 NY Slip Op 50780(U) [72 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on August 5, 2021

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 5, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, JJ
2020-676 N C

Badrunnisa Alvi and Anwar Alvi, Appellants,

against

Daimler Trust/Daimler Title, Doing Business as Mercedes-Benz Financial Services, Respondent.

Badrunnisa Alvi and Anwar Alvi, appellants pro se. Law Offices of Rudolph J. Meola (Rudolph J. Meola of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (James M. Darcy, J.), dated April 23, 2020. The order denied plaintiffs' motion for, in effect, leave to reargue their prior motion for partial summary judgment and their opposition to defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this action for breach of contract, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In an order dated January 21, 2020, the District Court (James M. Darcy, J.) denied plaintiffs' motion and granted defendant's cross motion. Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the District Court (James M. Darcy, J.) dated April 23, 2020, which denied plaintiffs' subsequent motion, "pursuant to CPLR 2221 [,] to vacate" the January 21, 2020 order. Since, in that motion, plaintiffs argued only that the District Court had misapprehended the facts and the law in its January 21, 2020 order, they actually sought leave to reargue their prior motion and their opposition to defendant's cross motion (see CPLR 2221 [d]). No appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co, v Spanos, 180 AD3d 997 [2020]; Alvarez v Jawaid, 163 AD3d 746, 748 [2018]; Perry v Kone, Inc., 147 AD3d 1091, 1092 [2017]). We note that, were we to treat plaintiffs' motion as one properly seeking leave to renew their prior motion and their opposition to defendant's cross motion (see Seafood Emporium Fish Mkt., Inc. v Lee, 26 Misc 3d 141[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50373[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]), we would find plaintiffs' arguments to be without merit.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

RUDERMAN, P.J., GARGUILO and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 5, 2021