Cappelli v. Cappelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cappelli v. Cappelli

279 A.D.2d 494, 718 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 444

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 494 (Cappelli v. Cappelli) 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

Cappelli v. Cappelli, 279 A.D.2d 494, 718 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary [495]*495relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated November 17, 1999, which denied his motion for leave to reargue his prior motion for modification of certain visitation restrictions, which was denied by a prior order of the same court (Goldstein, J.), dated May 8, 1998.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly treated the plaintiffs motion as a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appeal-able (see, Perovich v Liotta, 273 AD2d 367; Stillway v Guzewicz, 261 AD2d 392; Roman v Konis, 254 AD2d 269; McGill v Polytechnic Univ., 235 AD2d 402). Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary [495]*495relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated November 17, 1999, which denied his motion for leave to reargue his prior motion for modification of certain visitation restrictions, which was denied by a prior order of the same court (Goldstein, J.), dated May 8, 1998.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly treated the plaintiffs motion as a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appeal-able (see, Perovich v Liotta, 273 AD2d 367; Stillway v Guzewicz, 261 AD2d 392; Roman v Konis, 254 AD2d 269; McGill v Polytechnic Univ., 235 AD2d 402). Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 494, 718 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cappelli-v-cappelli-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack