Bryant v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bryant v. County of Suffolk

48 A.D.3d 500, 849 N.Y.S.2d 913

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 500 (Bryant v. County of Suffolk) 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

Bryant v. County of Suffolk, 48 A.D.3d 500, 849 N.Y.S.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest and unlawful imprisonment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated October 10, 2006, which denied his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs motion, although denominated as a “motion to restore,” was, in actuality, a motion for leave to reargue since it was virtually identical to his prior motion to restore, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated April 17, 2006 (see generally Johnson v Ford, 33 AD3d 529 [2006]). The denial of a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable (see CPI Contr., Inc. v Expert Elec., Inc., 36 AD3d 582 [2007]; Rivera v Toruno, 19 AD3d 473, 474 [2005]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest and unlawful imprisonment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated October 10, 2006, which denied his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs motion, although denominated as a “motion to restore,” was, in actuality, a motion for leave to reargue since it was virtually identical to his prior motion to restore, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated April 17, 2006 (see generally Johnson v Ford, 33 AD3d 529 [2006]). The denial of a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable (see CPI Contr., Inc. v Expert Elec., Inc., 36 AD3d 582 [2007]; Rivera v Toruno, 19 AD3d 473, 474 [2005]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 500, 849 N.Y.S.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-county-of-suffolk-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack