Estate of Bahar Uddin v. Miah

2024 NY Slip Op 04062

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: July 31, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 709058/22
• Status: Published

Opinion

Estate of Bahar Uddin v Miah (2024 NY Slip Op 04062)

Estate of Bahar Uddin v Miah

2024 NY Slip Op 04062

Decided on July 31, 2024

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on July 31, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
LARA J. GENOVESI
LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.

2023-00251
(Index No. 709058/22)

[*1]Estate of Bahar Uddin, et al., appellants,

v

Mohammed Tara Miah, respondent.

Law Offices of Andreas Vasilatos, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY (Scott P. Benjamin of counsel), for appellants.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to impose a constructive trust and to recover damages for unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph J. Esposito, J.), entered November 29, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were for leave to renew and reargue (1) those branches of their prior motion which were pursuant to CPLR 325 and 602 to stay a holdover proceeding entitled Miah v Nesa, pending in the Civil Court, Queens County, under Index No. 302688/22, to remove that proceeding to the Supreme Court, Queens County, and to consolidate that proceeding with this action, which had been denied in an order of the same court entered September 7, 2022, and (2) their opposition to that branch of the defendant's cross-motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been granted in the order entered September 7, 2022.

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

The appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to reargue must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Christiana Trust v Victor, 224 AD3d 869; Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. v S. & A. Neocronon, Inc., 224 AD3d 660). The appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to renew those branches of their prior motion which were pursuant to CPLR 325 and 602 to stay a holdover proceeding entitled Miah v Nesa, pending in the Civil Court, Queens County, under Index No. 302688/22, to remove that proceeding to the Supreme Court, Queens County, and to consolidate that proceeding with this action, and their opposition to that branch of the defendant's cross-motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is dismissed as academic in light of our determination on a related appeal (see Estate of Bahar Uddin v Miah, ___ AD3d ___ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2022-07873; decided herewith]).

LASALLE, P.J., MALTESE, GENOVESI and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court