Davis v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. City of New York

11 A.D.3d 254, 782 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 254 (Davis v. City of New York) 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

Davis v. City of New York, 11 A.D.3d 254, 782 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York [255]*255County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered on or about May 19, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 21, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion denominated as one to renew and reargue, deemed to be an appeal from an order denying a motion only for reargument, and, so considered, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Assuming in plaintiffs favor that he timely filed a proper notice of claim, the action would still have to be dismissed since it was not commenced within a year and 90 days after the happening of the events on which the claim is based (General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]). We view plaintiffs subsequent motion to renew or reargue as one simply for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable, since it did not present any new facts (see Lichtman v Mount Judah Cemetery, 269 AD2d 319, 320 [2000]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Saxe and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York [255]*255County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered on or about May 19, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 21, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion denominated as one to renew and reargue, deemed to be an appeal from an order denying a motion only for reargument, and, so considered, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Assuming in plaintiffs favor that he timely filed a proper notice of claim, the action would still have to be dismissed since it was not commenced within a year and 90 days after the happening of the events on which the claim is based (General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]). We view plaintiffs subsequent motion to renew or reargue as one simply for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable, since it did not present any new facts (see Lichtman v Mount Judah Cemetery, 269 AD2d 319, 320 [2000]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Saxe and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 254, 782 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack