Biscaglio v. Roshan Taxi, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Biscaglio v. Roshan Taxi, Inc.

43 A.D.2d 919, 352 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5739

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 919 (Biscaglio v. Roshan Taxi, Inc.) 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

Biscaglio v. Roshan Taxi, Inc., 43 A.D.2d 919, 352 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on May 12, 1972, denying a motion to “renew and reargue” the denial of a prior motion to remove an action from the Civil Court, New York [920]*920County, to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, and to serve an amended complaint with an increased ad damnum clause, unanimously dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. While characterized as a motion for renewal, the motion papers presented no additional facts which were not before the court on the prior motion. The motion was therefore one for reargument, and as such, the order denying the motion was nonappealable. (Roberts v. Connelly, 35 A D 2d 813; 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 2201.03.) Concur — Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Steuer, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on May 12, 1972, denying a motion to “renew and reargue” the denial of a prior motion to remove an action from the Civil Court, New York [920]*920County, to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, and to serve an amended complaint with an increased ad damnum clause, unanimously dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. While characterized as a motion for renewal, the motion papers presented no additional facts which were not before the court on the prior motion. The motion was therefore one for reargument, and as such, the order denying the motion was nonappealable. (Roberts v. Connelly, 35 A D 2d 813; 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 2201.03.) Concur — Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Steuer, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 919, 352 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biscaglio-v-roshan-taxi-inc-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack