Chase Manhattan Bank v. Taneja

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Taneja

41 A.D.3d 756, 837 N.Y.S.2d 595

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

DecidedJune 26, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 756 (Chase Manhattan Bank v. Taneja) 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

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Taneja, 41 A.D.3d 756, 837 N.Y.S.2d 595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Mohinder Taneja appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), entered July 27, 2006, which denied his motion, denominated as one to settle the proper amount to pay off the mortgage, but which was, in actuality, a motion for leave to reargue his prior motion for similar relief.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, with costs, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

The motion of the defendant Mohinder Taneja, denominated as one to settle the proper amount to pay off a mortgage, was properly deemed by the Supreme Court to be a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see Crown v Sayah, 31 AD3d 367 [2006]; Rivera v Toruno, 19 AD3d 473, 474 [2005]; Koehler v Town of Smithtown, 305 AD2d 550, 551 [2003]; Sallusti v Jones, 273 AD2d 293, 294 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and Balkin, 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 Mohinder Taneja appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), entered July 27, 2006, which denied his motion, denominated as one to settle the proper amount to pay off the mortgage, but which was, in actuality, a motion for leave to reargue his prior motion for similar relief.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, with costs, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

The motion of the defendant Mohinder Taneja, denominated as one to settle the proper amount to pay off a mortgage, was properly deemed by the Supreme Court to be a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see Crown v Sayah, 31 AD3d 367 [2006]; Rivera v Toruno, 19 AD3d 473, 474 [2005]; Koehler v Town of Smithtown, 305 AD2d 550, 551 [2003]; Sallusti v Jones, 273 AD2d 293, 294 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 756, 837 N.Y.S.2d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-manhattan-bank-v-taneja-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack