Italian American Civic Ass'n. v. Cataldo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Italian American Civic Ass'n. v. Cataldo

220 A.D.2d 483, 632 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9978

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 483 (Italian American Civic Ass'n. v. Cataldo) 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

Italian American Civic Ass'n. v. Cataldo, 220 A.D.2d 483, 632 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated May 27, 1994, as denied his cross motion, in effect, to reargue.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Although the defendant’s cross motion is denominated as one to vacate, inter alia, a prior order on the ground of misrepresentation (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]), the cross motion is actually a cross motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appeal-able (see, Robinson v Laurent, 205 AD2d 517; Continental Bank v J.D.S. Vendor Servs., 201 AD2d 527). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated May 27, 1994, as denied his cross motion, in effect, to reargue.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Although the defendant’s cross motion is denominated as one to vacate, inter alia, a prior order on the ground of misrepresentation (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]), the cross motion is actually a cross motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appeal-able (see, Robinson v Laurent, 205 AD2d 517; Continental Bank v J.D.S. Vendor Servs., 201 AD2d 527). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 483, 632 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/italian-american-civic-assn-v-cataldo-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack