Capital Resources Corp. v. Auguste

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capital Resources Corp. v. Auguste

283 A.D.2d 453, 724 N.Y.S.2d 628, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4974

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

DecidedMay 14, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 453 (Capital Resources Corp. v. Auguste) 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

Capital Resources Corp. v. Auguste, 283 A.D.2d 453, 724 N.Y.S.2d 628, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Anne Marie Auguste appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated June 15, 2000, which denied her motion, in effect, for leave to reargue a prior motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered September 19, 1997, upon her default in appearing and answering.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The appellant’s motion, characterized as one for leave to renew and reargue, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of her original motion. Therefore, her motion was, in fact, a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Bossio v Fiorillo, 222 AD2d 476; [454]*454Halliday v Halliday, 218 AD2d 729). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Anne Marie Auguste appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated June 15, 2000, which denied her motion, in effect, for leave to reargue a prior motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered September 19, 1997, upon her default in appearing and answering.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The appellant’s motion, characterized as one for leave to renew and reargue, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of her original motion. Therefore, her motion was, in fact, a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Bossio v Fiorillo, 222 AD2d 476; [454]*454Halliday v Halliday, 218 AD2d 729). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 453, 724 N.Y.S.2d 628, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capital-resources-corp-v-auguste-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack