Kaplan v. Nadler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaplan v. Nadler

23 A.D.2d 774, 258 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4460

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

DecidedApril 12, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 774 (Kaplan v. Nadler) 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

Kaplan v. Nadler, 23 A.D.2d 774, 258 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover -damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme 'Court, Kings 'County, entered November 9, 1964, which denied his motion for reconsideration of an earlier application which had resulted in the denial of his application for a general preference in trial. Appeal dismissed, without costs, and without prejudice to renewal of the application for a preference, if plaintiff be so -advised. No new or additional facts were presented in the affidavit and papers submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion which was characterized by him as one for “ reconsideration.” Such motion, therefore, was in fact a motion for reargument o-f the prior application. An order denying a motion for reargument is not appealable (Matter of Knieriemen Oil Co. v. Lane, 19 A D 2d 842; Sellet v. City of Yonkers, 13 A D 2d 976). Christ, Acting’P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover -damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme 'Court, Kings 'County, entered November 9, 1964, which denied his motion for reconsideration of an earlier application which had resulted in the denial of his application for a general preference in trial. Appeal dismissed, without costs, and without prejudice to renewal of the application for a preference, if plaintiff be so -advised. No new or additional facts were presented in the affidavit and papers submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion which was characterized by him as one for “ reconsideration.” Such motion, therefore, was in fact a motion for reargument o-f the prior application. An order denying a motion for reargument is not appealable (Matter of Knieriemen Oil Co. v. Lane, 19 A D 2d 842; Sellet v. City of Yonkers, 13 A D 2d 976). Christ, Acting’P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 774, 258 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-nadler-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack