Daughety v. St. Mary's Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daughety v. St. Mary's Hospital

301 A.D.2d 558, 753 N.Y.S.2d 846

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 558 (Daughety v. St. Mary's Hospital) 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

Daughety v. St. Mary's Hospital, 301 A.D.2d 558, 753 N.Y.S.2d 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated October 27, 2000, which denied her motion, in effect, for leave to reargue.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff’s motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument, was not based upon new facts that were unavail- • able to her at the time she opposed the defendants’ motions for [559]*559summary judgment (see Muro v Bay Ready Mix & Supplies, 282 AD2d 584; Bossio v Fiorillo, 222 AD2d 476, 477). Therefore, the motion was, in effect, one for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see Muro v Bay Ready Mix & Supplies, supra; Bossio v Fiorillo, supra). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Crane, 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 medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated October 27, 2000, which denied her motion, in effect, for leave to reargue.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff’s motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument, was not based upon new facts that were unavail- • able to her at the time she opposed the defendants’ motions for [559]*559summary judgment (see Muro v Bay Ready Mix & Supplies, 282 AD2d 584; Bossio v Fiorillo, 222 AD2d 476, 477). Therefore, the motion was, in effect, one for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see Muro v Bay Ready Mix & Supplies, supra; Bossio v Fiorillo, supra). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 558, 753 N.Y.S.2d 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daughety-v-st-marys-hospital-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack