James v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

James v. Rodriguez

193 A.D.2d 990, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5132

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 20, 1993·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered June 8, 1992 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

In moving for reconsideration, petitioner presented no new material facts but merely alluded to facts already in the record before Supreme Court. The motion was therefore clearly one for reargument. Because the denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable, the appeal must be dismissed (see, Vernooy v Vernooy, 138 AD2d 913; Nulman v Hall, 115 AD2d 837).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered June 8, 1992 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

In moving for reconsideration, petitioner presented no new material facts but merely alluded to facts already in the record before Supreme Court. The motion was therefore clearly one for reargument. Because the denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable, the appeal must be dismissed (see, Vernooy v Vernooy, 138 AD2d 913; Nulman v Hall, 115 AD2d 837).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

James v. Rodriguez, 193 A.D.2d 990, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

193 A.D.2d 990 (James v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related