Kilpatrick v. Utica Avenue Auto Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kilpatrick v. Utica Avenue Auto Sales, Inc.

270 A.D.2d 233, 704 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2482

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 6, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated September 10, 1998, which denied his motion to compel the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation to appear on behalf of and defend the defendants in this action, and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 1, 1999, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 1, 1999, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 10, 1998, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There is no merit to the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to compel the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation to appear on behalf of and defend the defendants in this action (see, Muhammad v Diaz, 198 AD2d 32; Bell v Morris, 169 Misc 2d 1062). Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, 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, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated September 10, 1998, which denied his motion to compel the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation to appear on behalf of and defend the defendants in this action, and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 1, 1999, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 1, 1999, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 10, 1998, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There is no merit to the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to compel the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation to appear on behalf of and defend the defendants in this action (see, Muhammad v Diaz, 198 AD2d 32; Bell v Morris, 169 Misc 2d 1062). Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Kilpatrick v. Utica Avenue Auto Sales, Inc., 270 A.D.2d 233, 704 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

270 A.D.2d 233 (Kilpatrick v. Utica Avenue Auto Sales, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related