Amankwa v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amankwa v. New York City Housing Authority

224 A.D.2d 262, 637 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1050

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 262 (Amankwa v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amankwa v. New York City Housing Authority, 224 A.D.2d 262, 637 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered November 21, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion to renew its summary judgment motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

[263]*263Since defendant’s "renewal” motion was, in essence, a motion for "reargument”, the order denying the motion is not appealable (Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 173 AD2d 203, 204). Defendant’s "renewal” motion was based on citation of recent cases that merely reaffirmed existing law and thus, did not constitute new "law not previously considered” by the IAS Court (Johnston v National R. R. Passenger Corp., 161 AD2d 288, 289). Were we not dismissing this appeal, we would find it to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered November 21, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion to renew its summary judgment motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

[263]*263Since defendant’s "renewal” motion was, in essence, a motion for "reargument”, the order denying the motion is not appealable (Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 173 AD2d 203, 204). Defendant’s "renewal” motion was based on citation of recent cases that merely reaffirmed existing law and thus, did not constitute new "law not previously considered” by the IAS Court (Johnston v National R. R. Passenger Corp., 161 AD2d 288, 289). Were we not dismissing this appeal, we would find it to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 262, 637 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amankwa-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack