Duffy v. Holt-Harris

198 A.D.2d 326, 605 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10695
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

198 A.D.2d 326 (Duffy v. Holt-Harris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Duffy v. Holt-Harris
260 A.D.2d 595 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)