Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt

138 A.D.3d 500, 28 N.Y.S.3d 307

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 12, 2016·No. 799N 155985/14·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered December 18, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to renew that portion of a prior order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 19, *501 2015, inter alia, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from revealing privileged attorney-client communications with plaintiffs, deemed to be an appeal from an order denying re-argument, and, so considered, the appeal from said order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that her motion to “renew” was based on any new facts not known to her at the time of the original motion, and as such, the appeal is deemed to be from a motion to reargue (CPLR 2221), the denial of which is not appealable (see Belok v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 89 AD3d 579 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered December 18, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to renew that portion of a prior order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 19, *501 2015, inter alia, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from revealing privileged attorney-client communications with plaintiffs, deemed to be an appeal from an order denying re-argument, and, so considered, the appeal from said order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that her motion to “renew” was based on any new facts not known to her at the time of the original motion, and as such, the appeal is deemed to be from a motion to reargue (CPLR 2221), the denial of which is not appealable (see Belok v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 89 AD3d 579 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt, 138 A.D.3d 500, 28 N.Y.S.3d 307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

138 A.D.3d 500 (Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related