Daluise v. Sottile

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daluise v. Sottile

15 A.D.3d 609, 789 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2078

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 609 (Daluise v. Sottile) 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

Daluise v. Sottile, 15 A.D.3d 609, 789 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated February 24, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for leave to reargue his motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in a prior order of the same court dated December 1, 2003, and, upon granting reargument, vacated the prior order and reinstated the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied, and the order dated December 1, 2003, is reinstated.

The plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the Supreme Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or law. Thus, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for leave to reargue (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]). Adams, J.E, Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated February 24, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for leave to reargue his motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in a prior order of the same court dated December 1, 2003, and, upon granting reargument, vacated the prior order and reinstated the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied, and the order dated December 1, 2003, is reinstated.

The plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the Supreme Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or law. Thus, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for leave to reargue (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]). Adams, J.E, Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 609, 789 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daluise-v-sottile-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack