DeMeo v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeMeo v. County of Suffolk

262 A.D.2d 270, 690 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5903

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 270 (DeMeo v. County of Suffolk) 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

DeMeo v. County of Suffolk, 262 A.D.2d 270, 690 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 5, 1998, which denied his motion denominated as one to renew and reargue a prior motion to restore this action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs motion, although characterized as one for renewal and reargument of the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, was in actuality a motion for reargument since it was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Wodecki v Carty, 167 AD2d 398; Huttner v McDaid, 151 AD2d 547; Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 AD2d 513). Mangano, P. J., Friedmann, McGinity and Feuerstein, 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, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 5, 1998, which denied his motion denominated as one to renew and reargue a prior motion to restore this action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs motion, although characterized as one for renewal and reargument of the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, was in actuality a motion for reargument since it was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Wodecki v Carty, 167 AD2d 398; Huttner v McDaid, 151 AD2d 547; Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 AD2d 513). Mangano, P. J., Friedmann, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 270, 690 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demeo-v-county-of-suffolk-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack