Cillo v. Resjefal Corp.

300 A.D.2d 146, 751 N.Y.S.2d 727, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12444
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 19, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Albert Emanuelli, J.), entered March 11, 2002, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Emanuelli, J., with costs and disbursements. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 1, 2002, unanimously dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Appellant’s motion to reargue and renew was properly deemed one to reargue only (see Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27, Iv denied in part and dismissed in part 80 NY2d 1005), the denial of which is not appealable (see Zappel v Port Auth., 285 AD2d 389). No opinion. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Cillo v. Resjefal Corp., 300 A.D.2d 146, 751 N.Y.S.2d 727, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

300 A.D.2d 146 (Cillo v. Resjefal Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Social Service Employees Union v. New York City Board of Correction
93 A.D.3d 454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Boorman v. City of New York
34 Misc. 3d 435 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)