Haggerty v. Burns

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haggerty v. Burns

282 A.D.2d 500, 728 N.Y.S.2d 374, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4197

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 500 (Haggerty v. Burns) 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

Haggerty v. Burns, 282 A.D.2d 500, 728 N.Y.S.2d 374, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated May 16, 2000, which denied his motion for leave to reargue a prior motion which was determined by an order of the same court, dated March 14, 2000, and granted the cross motion of the defendants Law Office of Carole A. Burns and Eliott C. Winograd, and the separate cross motion of the defendant Agawam Realty, Ltd., for the imposition of sanctions upon him.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the motion for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and-it is further,

[501]*501Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

An order insofar as it denies reargument is not appealable (see, Haggerty v Agawam Realty, 271 AD2d 408; King v Rockaway One Co., 202 AD2d 395).

The imposition of sanctions was a provident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Mancini v Mancini, 245 AD2d 518; McMurray v McMurray, 157 AD2d 773). S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated May 16, 2000, which denied his motion for leave to reargue a prior motion which was determined by an order of the same court, dated March 14, 2000, and granted the cross motion of the defendants Law Office of Carole A. Burns and Eliott C. Winograd, and the separate cross motion of the defendant Agawam Realty, Ltd., for the imposition of sanctions upon him.