Falci v. Battista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Falci v. Battista

240 A.D.2d 364, 658 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5797

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

DecidedJune 2, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 364 (Falci v. Battista) 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

Falci v. Battista, 240 A.D.2d 364, 658 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated June 10, 1996, as denied his motion for, in effect, reargument of his prior application to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered April 9, 1990, upon his default in appearing at trial (see, Falci v Battista, 224 AD2d 654).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The record discloses that the defendant’s motion, brought by order to show cause dated April 25, 1996, and denominated as one to vacate a judgment entered upon his default in appearing at trial, is in substance a motion for reargument of his prior application to vacate the judgment. As the denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable (see, Vazem Corp. T/A Paradise Caterers v Sea & Sky Garden, 183 AD2d 710; Matter of Dowling v Bowen, 53 AD2d 862), the appeal must be dismissed (see, Fahey v County of Nassau, 111 AD2d 214). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for fraud, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated June 10, 1996, as denied his motion for, in effect, reargument of his prior application to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered April 9, 1990, upon his default in appearing at trial (see, Falci v Battista, 224 AD2d 654).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The record discloses that the defendant’s motion, brought by order to show cause dated April 25, 1996, and denominated as one to vacate a judgment entered upon his default in appearing at trial, is in substance a motion for reargument of his prior application to vacate the judgment. As the denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable (see, Vazem Corp. T/A Paradise Caterers v Sea & Sky Garden, 183 AD2d 710; Matter of Dowling v Bowen, 53 AD2d 862), the appeal must be dismissed (see, Fahey v County of Nassau, 111 AD2d 214). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 364, 658 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falci-v-battista-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack