Domingez v. Zinnar

130 A.D.3d 414, 11 N.Y.S.3d 484

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered on or about March 25, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs-respondents’ counsel’s motion to confirm a referee’s report setting a charging lien in favor of counsel, and denied plaintiff Vasquez’s cross motion for renewal and reconsideration of counsel’s prior motion for a charging lien, unanimously affirmed with respect to counsel’s motion, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs.

Vasquez’s cross motion seeking renewal and reconsideration is deemed a motion to reargue, since Vasquez did not point to any new fact that would change the prior determination (see Pullman v Silverman, 125 AD3d 562, 563 [1st Dept 2015]). Therefore, the denial of Vasquez’s cross motion is not appeal-able (id.).

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in confirming the Referee’s report, as the report is supported by the record (Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc., 11 NY3d 843, 845 [2008]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Renwick, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.