Califano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Califano v. City of New York

17 A.D.3d 389, 792 N.Y.S.2d 357, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3865

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

DecidedApril 11, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 389 (Califano v. City of New York) 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

Califano v. City of New York, 17 A.D.3d 389, 792 N.Y.S.2d 357, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated October 23, 2003, which denied its motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew, but which was, in effect, solely for leave to reargue its prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs payable to the respondents.

The only determination made by the Supreme Court in the order appealed from was the denial of the motion by the defendant New York City Transit Authority “to reargue” its prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Although the motion was denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew a prior summary judgment motion, the Supreme Court correctly treated it as one, in effect, for leave to reargue, since it was not based on new facts that were unavailable at the time the prior motion was still pending (see CFLR 2221 [e]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed (see O’Ferral v City of New York, 8 AD3d 457, 459 [2004]; Longo v County of Nassau, 6 AD3d 670 [2004]; Elias v Grossman, 306 AD2d 432, 433 [2003]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Fisher, 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 defendant New York City Transit Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated October 23, 2003, which denied its motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew, but which was, in effect, solely for leave to reargue its prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs payable to the respondents.

The only determination made by the Supreme Court in the order appealed from was the denial of the motion by the defendant New York City Transit Authority “to reargue” its prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Although the motion was denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew a prior summary judgment motion, the Supreme Court correctly treated it as one, in effect, for leave to reargue, since it was not based on new facts that were unavailable at the time the prior motion was still pending (see CFLR 2221 [e]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed (see O’Ferral v City of New York, 8 AD3d 457, 459 [2004]; Longo v County of Nassau, 6 AD3d 670 [2004]; Elias v Grossman, 306 AD2d 432, 433 [2003]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 389, 792 N.Y.S.2d 357, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/califano-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack