Children's Village v. Greenburgh Eleven Teachers' Union Federation of Teachers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Children's Village v. Greenburgh Eleven Teachers' Union Federation of Teachers

249 A.D.2d 434, 671 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4253

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

DecidedApril 20, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 434 (Children's Village v. Greenburgh Eleven Teachers' Union Federation of Teachers) 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

Children's Village v. Greenburgh Eleven Teachers' Union Federation of Teachers, 249 A.D.2d 434, 671 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, the plaintiff Children’s Village appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered March 25, 1997, which denied its motion, in effect, to reargue its prior motion to enlarge the scope of certain injunctive relief it had been granted previously in the action.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

The Supreme Court properly considered the plaintiffs motion as one to reargue its prior motions seeking the same relief. Therefore, this appeal from the order denying the motion must [435]*435be dismissed (see, e.g., Misek-Falkoff v Village of Pleasantville, 207 AD2d 332, 333). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, the plaintiff Children’s Village appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered March 25, 1997, which denied its motion, in effect, to reargue its prior motion to enlarge the scope of certain injunctive relief it had been granted previously in the action.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

The Supreme Court properly considered the plaintiffs motion as one to reargue its prior motions seeking the same relief. Therefore, this appeal from the order denying the motion must [435]*435be dismissed (see, e.g., Misek-Falkoff v Village of Pleasantville, 207 AD2d 332, 333). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 434, 671 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childrens-village-v-greenburgh-eleven-teachers-union-federation-of-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack