Chawla v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chawla v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore

251 A.D.2d 96, 673 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6693

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

DecidedJune 11, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 96 (Chawla v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore) 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

Chawla v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, 251 A.D.2d 96, 673 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered June 2, 1997, which, in an action for employment discrimination, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew a prior order, entered September 13, 1996, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

So much of the order as denied reargument is nonappealable (see, Sioris v 25 W. 43rd St. Co., 223 AD2d 475). Renewal was properly denied for failure to show that the alleged new facts were unavailable at the time of the original motion (see, Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27, lv denied and dismissed 80 NY2d 1005). We would add that the alleged new facts do not in any event undermine the finding that defendant’s articulated reason for terminating plaintiff is nonpretex[97]*97tual (245 AD2d 180). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered June 2, 1997, which, in an action for employment discrimination, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew a prior order, entered September 13, 1996, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

So much of the order as denied reargument is nonappealable (see, Sioris v 25 W. 43rd St. Co., 223 AD2d 475). Renewal was properly denied for failure to show that the alleged new facts were unavailable at the time of the original motion (see, Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27, lv denied and dismissed 80 NY2d 1005). We would add that the alleged new facts do not in any event undermine the finding that defendant’s articulated reason for terminating plaintiff is nonpretex[97]*97tual (245 AD2d 180). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 96, 673 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chawla-v-cravath-swaine-moore-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack