Basile v. Wiggs

117 A.D.3d 766, 984 N.Y.S.2d 882
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 14, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 117 A.D.3d 766 (Basile v. Wiggs) 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
Basile v. Wiggs, 117 A.D.3d 766, 984 N.Y.S.2d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated June 19, 2007, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Connolly, J.), dated October 17, 2012, which denied his motion, denominated as one pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate an order dated January 20, 2012, for lack of jurisdiction, but which was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue his motion, inter alia, to vacate the order dated January 20, 2012, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated March 21, 2012.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs and disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

The plaintiffs motion was denominated as a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) seeking to vacate an order of protection dated January 20, 2012, entered upon his default, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to enter the order of protection. The subject motion, however, sought the same relief as the plaintiff sought in a prior motion that he submitted on or about March 19, 2012, which had been denied in an order dated March 21, 2012. In support of the subject motion, the plaintiff, without proffering any new facts, argued that the Supreme Court previously had overlooked or misapprehended the applicable law and facts (see CPLR 2221; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Russell-Esposito, 71 AD3d 1127 [2010]; Jones v Amiee Lynn Accessories, 38 AD3d 613 [2007]). Since the subject motion was, in actuality, a motion for leave to reargue, the appeal must be dismissed, as the denial of reargument is not appealable (see George v Yoma Dev. Group, Inc., 83 AD3d 776 [2011]; Jones v Amiee Lynn Accessories, 38 AD3d at 613).

Dickerson, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Citibank, N.A. v. Kerszko
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022
Uttamchandani v. Uttamchandani
2019 NY Slip Op 6645 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Nyack Hosp. v. Oak Hill Cemetery
2019 NY Slip Op 6609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Richardson v. Thompson
2016 NY Slip Op 7659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Humsted v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
142 A.D.3d 1139 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Einheber v. Sagalovich
140 A.D.3d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
of N.Y. Estate of Celia Kates v. Pressly
132 A.D.3d 723 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Thevenin
127 A.D.3d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 A.D.3d 766, 984 N.Y.S.2d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basile-v-wiggs-nyappdiv-2014.