Duffy v. Holt-Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duffy v. Holt-Harris

198 A.D.2d 326, 605 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10695

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 326 (Duffy v. Holt-Harris) 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

Duffy v. Holt-Harris, 198 A.D.2d 326, 605 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for injunctive relief under 42 USC § 1983, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), entered October 4, 1991, which denied his motion, denominated as a motion for leave to renew, but which was, in actuality, a motion for reargument of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by decision and order of this Court dated March 12, 1990 (Duffy v Holt-Harris, 159 AD2d 542).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s motion, denominated as a motion for leave to renew, was, in actuality, a motion to reargue. No appeal lies from the denial of reargument. Accordingly, the appeal is [327]*327dismissed (see, McElroy v Guida, 196 AD2d 859). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for injunctive relief under 42 USC § 1983, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), entered October 4, 1991, which denied his motion, denominated as a motion for leave to renew, but which was, in actuality, a motion for reargument of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by decision and order of this Court dated March 12, 1990 (Duffy v Holt-Harris, 159 AD2d 542).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s motion, denominated as a motion for leave to renew, was, in actuality, a motion to reargue. No appeal lies from the denial of reargument. Accordingly, the appeal is [327]*327dismissed (see, McElroy v Guida, 196 AD2d 859). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 326, 605 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duffy-v-holt-harris-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack