Fisher v. Ives

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fisher v. Ives

251 A.D.2d 1022, 675 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7057

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

DecidedJune 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 1022 (Fisher v. Ives) 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

Fisher v. Ives, 251 A.D.2d 1022, 675 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7057 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Supreme Court determined that the parties’ submissions were insufficient to resolve that issue. The court therefore ordered that the motion be adjourned for 12 weeks and directed the parties to conduct further discovery and submit appropriate evidence on the issue whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury in the accident. Defendant appeals from that order.

The appeal is dismissed. Inasmuch as the court adjourned the motion and effectively reserved decision until the adjourned date, the order is not appealable (see, Barr v Country Motor Car Group, 221 AD2d 1003, lv dismissed 88 NY2d 919; Cobb v Kittinger, 168 AD2d 923). Alternatively, if the order is construed as denying the motion with leave to renew upon a proper showing, it remains nonappealable (see, Marasco v Kaplan, 177 AD2d 933, 934; Walden v Nowinski, 63 AD2d 586; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 70:25, at 43). In that case, defendant’s remedy is not to appeal but to renew the motion “supported by the necessary and proper papers found to be lacking upon the original application” (Walden v Nowinski, supra, at 587; see, Marasco v Kaplan, supra, at 934). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Supreme Court determined that the parties’ submissions were insufficient to resolve that issue. The court therefore ordered that the motion be adjourned for 12 weeks and directed the parties to conduct further discovery and submit appropriate evidence on the issue whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury in the accident. Defendant appeals from that order.

The appeal is dismissed. Inasmuch as the court adjourned the motion and effectively reserved decision until the adjourned date, the order is not appealable (see, Barr v Country Motor Car Group, 221 AD2d 1003, lv dismissed 88 NY2d 919; Cobb v Kittinger, 168 AD2d 923). Alternatively, if the order is construed as denying the motion with leave to renew upon a proper showing, it remains nonappealable (see, Marasco v Kaplan, 177 AD2d 933, 934; Walden v Nowinski, 63 AD2d 586; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 70:25, at 43). In that case, defendant’s remedy is not to appeal but to renew the motion “supported by the necessary and proper papers found to be lacking upon the original application” (Walden v Nowinski, supra, at 587; see, Marasco v Kaplan, supra, at 934). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 1022, 675 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-ives-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack