Connors v. Harnois

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connors v. Harnois

202 A.D.2d 544, 610 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2647

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 544 (Connors v. Harnois) 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

Connors v. Harnois, 202 A.D.2d 544, 610 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated January 14, 1992, which denied his motion, denominated as one for renewal, but which was, in actuality, a motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse as to why the additional facts submitted on the purported motion for renewal were not submitted on the original application, the motion was in actuality a motion for reargument. No appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (see, King v Rockaway One Co., 202 AD2d 395). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, 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, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated January 14, 1992, which denied his motion, denominated as one for renewal, but which was, in actuality, a motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse as to why the additional facts submitted on the purported motion for renewal were not submitted on the original application, the motion was in actuality a motion for reargument. No appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (see, King v Rockaway One Co., 202 AD2d 395). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 544, 610 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connors-v-harnois-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack