Feliciano v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feliciano v. Gonzalez

43 A.D.2d 941, 351 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5816

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 941 (Feliciano v. Gonzalez) 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

Feliciano v. Gonzalez, 43 A.D.2d 941, 351 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals (1) ás limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 7, 1972, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original decision denying his motion to vacate a dismissal of the action and to restore the case to the Trial Calendar and (2) from a further order of the same court, dated October 16, 1972, which denied plaintiff’s motion for further reargnment. Appeal from order dated October 16, 1972, dismissed, without costs. An order denying reargument of a motion is not appealable. Order dated July 7, 1972, reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal and to restore the ease to the trial calendar granted. In our opinion, under the facts and circumstances of this case, plaintiff did not evince a willful intent to abandon his action and the matter should be determined on the merits at trial. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Shapiro and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals (1) ás limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 7, 1972, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original decision denying his motion to vacate a dismissal of the action and to restore the case to the Trial Calendar and (2) from a further order of the same court, dated October 16, 1972, which denied plaintiff’s motion for further reargnment. Appeal from order dated October 16, 1972, dismissed, without costs. An order denying reargument of a motion is not appealable. Order dated July 7, 1972, reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal and to restore the ease to the trial calendar granted. In our opinion, under the facts and circumstances of this case, plaintiff did not evince a willful intent to abandon his action and the matter should be determined on the merits at trial. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Shapiro and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 941, 351 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feliciano-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-1974.