Cardona v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cardona v. City of New York

82 A.D.2d 884, 440 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14587

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

DecidedJune 22, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 884 (Cardona 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

Cardona v. City of New York, 82 A.D.2d 884, 440 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for leave to file a late notice of claim, petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kartell, J.), dated April 10, 1980, which granted respondents’ motion, designated as one for “reconsideration, and renewal” of a prior order of the same court, dated November 3, 1977, which prior order had, inter alia, granted leave to the petitioners to serve a late notice of claim upon the respondents, and upon renewal, “rescinded” its original order and denied petitioners’ application to file a late notice of claim. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and respondents’ motion is denied as untimely. Respondents’ motion for “reconsideration, and renewal” was, in reality, a motion for reargument, no new matter having been presented which was unavailable to respondents prior to the order dated November 3, 1977 (see Matter of Samson v County of Nassau, 78 AD2d 657). As such, the motion was clearly untimely since a motion for reargument may not be made after the time to appeal from the original order has expired (cf. Matter of Huie [Furman], 20 NY2d 568, 572; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). Mollen, P.J., Damiani, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for leave to file a late notice of claim, petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kartell, J.), dated April 10, 1980, which granted respondents’ motion, designated as one for “reconsideration, and renewal” of a prior order of the same court, dated November 3, 1977, which prior order had, inter alia, granted leave to the petitioners to serve a late notice of claim upon the respondents, and upon renewal, “rescinded” its original order and denied petitioners’ application to file a late notice of claim. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and respondents’ motion is denied as untimely. Respondents’ motion for “reconsideration, and renewal” was, in reality, a motion for reargument, no new matter having been presented which was unavailable to respondents prior to the order dated November 3, 1977 (see Matter of Samson v County of Nassau, 78 AD2d 657). As such, the motion was clearly untimely since a motion for reargument may not be made after the time to appeal from the original order has expired (cf. Matter of Huie [Furman], 20 NY2d 568, 572; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). Mollen, P.J., Damiani, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 884, 440 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardona-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack