Haughton v. F.W.D. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haughton v. F.W.D. Corp.

193 A.D.2d 781, 598 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5230

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

DecidedMay 24, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 781 (Haughton v. F.W.D. Corp.) 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

Haughton v. F.W.D. Corp., 193 A.D.2d 781, 598 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), entered March 13, 1991, as, upon reargument, adhered to a determination in an order of the same court entered November 7, 1990, to deny the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint by adding a cause of action sounding in strict products liability, and leave to serve an amended and supplemental bill of particulars and answers to interrogatories.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, their motion was for reargument of a prior motion which was denied by an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), entered November 7, 1990. The motion to reargue was made after the time to take the appeal from the order entered November 7, 1990, had expired and was therefore untimely, since it is well settled that a motion to reargue cannot be used to extend the time to appeal (see, Catalogue Serv. v Insurance Co., 90 AD2d 838). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Lawrence and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), entered March 13, 1991, as, upon reargument, adhered to a determination in an order of the same court entered November 7, 1990, to deny the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint by adding a cause of action sounding in strict products liability, and leave to serve an amended and supplemental bill of particulars and answers to interrogatories.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, their motion was for reargument of a prior motion which was denied by an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), entered November 7, 1990. The motion to reargue was made after the time to take the appeal from the order entered November 7, 1990, had expired and was therefore untimely, since it is well settled that a motion to reargue cannot be used to extend the time to appeal (see, Catalogue Serv. v Insurance Co., 90 AD2d 838). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Lawrence and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 781, 598 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haughton-v-fwd-corp-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack