Braunstein v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braunstein v. County of Nassau

245 A.D.2d 255, 666 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12095

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 255 (Braunstein v. County of Nassau) 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

Braunstein v. County of Nassau, 245 A.D.2d 255, 666 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), entered April 10, 1997, which denied their motion, in effect, for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiffs have failed to offer a valid explanation as to why their purportedly newly-discovered evidence was not submitted in opposition to the original motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion, which was characterized as one for renewal and reargument, was not based on new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion. Therefore, their motion was really a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Bossio v Fiorillo, 222 AD2d 476; Iadarola v Orthopedic Inst., 202 AD2d 393; Matter of Pellegrino, 201 AD2d 653). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), entered April 10, 1997, which denied their motion, in effect, for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiffs have failed to offer a valid explanation as to why their purportedly newly-discovered evidence was not submitted in opposition to the original motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion, which was characterized as one for renewal and reargument, was not based on new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion. Therefore, their motion was really a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Bossio v Fiorillo, 222 AD2d 476; Iadarola v Orthopedic Inst., 202 AD2d 393; Matter of Pellegrino, 201 AD2d 653). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 255, 666 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braunstein-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack