Cunningham v. Control Building Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunningham v. Control Building Services, Inc.

280 A.D.2d 636, 721 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1799

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 636 (Cunningham v. Control Building Services, Inc.) 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

Cunningham v. Control Building Services, Inc., 280 A.D.2d 636, 721 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Irwin B. Silverman appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated March 13, 2000, which denied his motion for an award of an attorney’s fee, and (2) an order of the same court dated May 24, 2000, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 24, 2000 is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it further,.

Ordered that the order dated March 13, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion based on his failure to file a retainer agreement in compliance with 22 NYCRR 691.20 (a) (1). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Gold-stein and Smith, 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, Irwin B. Silverman appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated March 13, 2000, which denied his motion for an award of an attorney’s fee, and (2) an order of the same court dated May 24, 2000, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 24, 2000 is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it further,.

Ordered that the order dated March 13, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion based on his failure to file a retainer agreement in compliance with 22 NYCRR 691.20 (a) (1). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Gold-stein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 636, 721 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-control-building-services-inc-nyappdiv-2001.