Gonzalez v. New York City Clerk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. New York City Clerk

25 A.D.3d 389, 806 N.Y.S.2d 868

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 389 (Gonzalez v. New York City Clerk) 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

Gonzalez v. New York City Clerk, 25 A.D.3d 389, 806 N.Y.S.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered January 6, 2005, which, to the extent appealable, denied the respondent City Clerk’s motion to renew, inter alia, his cross motion to dismiss the petition, previously denied in an order of the same court and Justice, entered August 16, 2004, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Renewal was properly denied since the purported new matter offered by respondent could have been submitted on the original motion (see Herrera v Matlin, 4 AD3d 139 [2004]). Inasmuch as the denial of renewal was proper, and the denial of that branch of respondent’s motion seeking reargument is nonappealable (see Williams v City of New York, 19 AD3d 251 [2005]), and no appeal has been taken from the original August 16, 2004 determination, respondent’s arguments addressed to that determination are not properly before us. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered January 6, 2005, which, to the extent appealable, denied the respondent City Clerk’s motion to renew, inter alia, his cross motion to dismiss the petition, previously denied in an order of the same court and Justice, entered August 16, 2004, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Renewal was properly denied since the purported new matter offered by respondent could have been submitted on the original motion (see Herrera v Matlin, 4 AD3d 139 [2004]). Inasmuch as the denial of renewal was proper, and the denial of that branch of respondent’s motion seeking reargument is nonappealable (see Williams v City of New York, 19 AD3d 251 [2005]), and no appeal has been taken from the original August 16, 2004 determination, respondent’s arguments addressed to that determination are not properly before us. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 389, 806 N.Y.S.2d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-new-york-city-clerk-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack