Arch Bay Holdings, LLC-Series 2010C v. Daisy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arch Bay Holdings, LLC-Series 2010C v. Daisy

132 A.D.3d 787, 17 N.Y.S.3d 888

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2015

Docket2013-07231

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 787 (Arch Bay Holdings, LLC-Series 2010C v. Daisy) 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

Arch Bay Holdings, LLC-Series 2010C v. Daisy, 132 A.D.3d 787, 17 N.Y.S.3d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Saleha R. Daisy, also known as Saleha Daisy, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), entered May 6, 2013, which denied her motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but *788 which was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated July 19, 2012.

Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal from the order on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 20, 2014, that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal from the order is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, with costs.

The appellant’s motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, did not offer any new facts that had not been offered on her prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as against her. Therefore, the motion, although denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, was, in actuality, only for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; [e] [2]; Poulard v Judkins, 102 AD3d 665, 666 [2013]; Strunk v Revenge Cab Corp., 98 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2012]; Blackwell v Mikevin Mgt. III, LLC, 88 AD3d 836, 838 [2011]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Saleha R. Daisy, also known as Saleha Daisy, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), entered May 6, 2013, which denied her motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but *788 which was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated July 19, 2012.

Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal from the order on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 20, 2014, that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal from the order is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, with costs.

The appellant’s motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, did not offer any new facts that had not been offered on her prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as against her. Therefore, the motion, although denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, was, in actuality, only for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; [e] [2]; Poulard v Judkins, 102 AD3d 665, 666 [2013]; Strunk v Revenge Cab Corp., 98 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2012]; Blackwell v Mikevin Mgt. III, LLC, 88 AD3d 836, 838 [2011]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 787, 17 N.Y.S.3d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arch-bay-holdings-llc-series-2010c-v-daisy-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack