Fedchak v. Gerald T. Stay Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fedchak v. Gerald T. Stay Co.

222 A.D.2d 1125, 636 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14326

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1125 (Fedchak v. Gerald T. Stay Co.) 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

Fedchak v. Gerald T. Stay Co., 222 A.D.2d 1125, 636 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s motion, denominated as one motion to "renew argument”, was in fact a motion to reargue, from which no appeal lies (see, Empire Ins. Co. v Food City, 167 AD2d 983, 984). Were we to treat this [1126]*1126as a motion to renew, we would affirm because the renewal motion was predicated on a legal theory not advanced in opposition to the original motion. Thus, it would have been an abuse of discretion to grant the renewal motion (see, Mid-State El. Co. v Empire-Salina Assocs. [appeal No. 2], 190 AD2d 1061; Brookview Homeowners’ Assn. v Mark IV Constr. Co., 178 AB2d 967). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Reargument.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s motion, denominated as one motion to "renew argument”, was in fact a motion to reargue, from which no appeal lies (see, Empire Ins. Co. v Food City, 167 AD2d 983, 984). Were we to treat this [1126]*1126as a motion to renew, we would affirm because the renewal motion was predicated on a legal theory not advanced in opposition to the original motion. Thus, it would have been an abuse of discretion to grant the renewal motion (see, Mid-State El. Co. v Empire-Salina Assocs. [appeal No. 2], 190 AD2d 1061; Brookview Homeowners’ Assn. v Mark IV Constr. Co., 178 AB2d 967). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Reargument.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1125, 636 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fedchak-v-gerald-t-stay-co-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack