Anthony v. Anthony

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anthony v. Anthony

111 A.D.2d 731, 489 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49976

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

DecidedJune 3, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.2d 731 (Anthony v. Anthony) 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

Anthony v. Anthony, 111 A.D.2d 731, 489 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), dated July 24, 1984, which denied his motion for reargument of his prior motion to compel defendant and the parties’ son to submit to a blood grouping test.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

No appeal lies from an order denying reargument. Special Term properly determined that the motion before it was one for reargument. The affidavits of plaintiff and his parents submitted in support of the application contained no new evidentiary facts which were unavailable at the time of the original application (see, Frank v Gessel, 108 AD2d 896; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558). Thus, no appeal lies from the denial of the motion. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), dated July 24, 1984, which denied his motion for reargument of his prior motion to compel defendant and the parties’ son to submit to a blood grouping test.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

No appeal lies from an order denying reargument. Special Term properly determined that the motion before it was one for reargument. The affidavits of plaintiff and his parents submitted in support of the application contained no new evidentiary facts which were unavailable at the time of the original application (see, Frank v Gessel, 108 AD2d 896; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558). Thus, no appeal lies from the denial of the motion. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 731, 489 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-v-anthony-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack