Baciu v. City University of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baciu v. City University of New York

283 A.D.2d 447, 724 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5040

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

DecidedMay 14, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 447 (Baciu v. City University of New York) 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

Baciu v. City University of New York, 283 A.D.2d 447, 724 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Marin, J.), dated July 24, 2000, which denied her motion, in effect, for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The claimant failed to provide a reasonable explanation why the physician’s affirmation in support of her motion for leave to file a late claim, which was submitted with her motion denominated as one for renewal, could not have been provided with the original motion. Consequently, the claimant’s motion was, in effect, one for reargument (see, Muro v Bay Ready Mix & Supplies, 282 AD2d 584; Privitera v City of New York, 277 AD2d 367; Matter of Thein v Mamaroneck Union Free School Dist., 231 AD2d 730). Since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the appeal must be dismissed. Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Marin, J.), dated July 24, 2000, which denied her motion, in effect, for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The claimant failed to provide a reasonable explanation why the physician’s affirmation in support of her motion for leave to file a late claim, which was submitted with her motion denominated as one for renewal, could not have been provided with the original motion. Consequently, the claimant’s motion was, in effect, one for reargument (see, Muro v Bay Ready Mix & Supplies, 282 AD2d 584; Privitera v City of New York, 277 AD2d 367; Matter of Thein v Mamaroneck Union Free School Dist., 231 AD2d 730). Since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the appeal must be dismissed. Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 447, 724 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baciu-v-city-university-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack