Carson v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carson v. New York City Transit Authority

237 A.D.2d 242, 655 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2063

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 242 (Carson v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Carson v. New York City Transit Authority, 237 A.D.2d 242, 655 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 22, 1995, which denied his motion, in effect, for leave to reargue a prior order dated December 7, 1994, [243]*243denying his application for leave to amend his notice of claim and dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

When a motion denominated as one to renew is predicated upon information which could have been raised at the time of the original motion and was not, and the plaintiff has offered no excuse for failing to present the evidence at that time, the motion to renew is in actuality a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (Marine Midland Bank v Freedom Rd. Realty Assocs., 203 AD2d 538, 539; Bartolo v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 198 AD2d 204; Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 AD2d 513). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and McGinity, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 22, 1995, which denied his motion, in effect, for leave to reargue a prior order dated December 7, 1994, [243]*243denying his application for leave to amend his notice of claim and dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

When a motion denominated as one to renew is predicated upon information which could have been raised at the time of the original motion and was not, and the plaintiff has offered no excuse for failing to present the evidence at that time, the motion to renew is in actuality a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (Marine Midland Bank v Freedom Rd. Realty Assocs., 203 AD2d 538, 539; Bartolo v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 198 AD2d 204; Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 AD2d 513). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 242, 655 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carson-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack